62d  Congress  1  SENATE  i  Document 

Sd  Session  J  \  No.  959 


INTERNATIONAL 
WATERWAYS  COMMISSION 
PROGRESS  REPORT 


MESSAGE  FROM  THE 
PRESIDENT  OF  THE  UNITED  STATES 

TRANSMITTING 

IN  COMPLIANCE  WITH  THE  PROVISIONS  OF  THE  ACT  OF  AUGUST 
24,  1912,  THE  REPORT  OF  THE  AMERICAN  COMMISSIONERS 
OF  THE  INTERNATIONAL  WATERWAYS  COMMISSION 
AND  RECOMMENDING  APPROPRIATION  FOR 
THE  CONTINUANCE  OF  THE  WORK 
OF  THE  COMMISSION 


December  3,  1912. — Read;  referred  to  the  Committee  on  Appropriations  and 

ordered  to  be  printed  with  illustration 


WASHINGTON 

1912 


• 


\ 


V 

t 


r 


MESSAGE. 


7b  the  Senate  and  House  of  Representatives, 

The  act  inakin"  appropriations  for  sundry  civil  expenses  of  the 
Government  approved  August  24,  1912,  provided  for  the  International 
Waterways  Commission  in  the  following  terms,  viz: 

V\_  For  continuing  until  December  thirty-first,  nineteen  hundred  and  twelve,  the  work 

rof  investigation  and  report  by  the  International  Waterways  Commission,  authorized 
by  section  four  of  the  river  and  harbor  act  approved  June  thirteenth,  nineteen  hundred 
and  tw'o,  $10,000:  Provided,  That  report  as  to  the  progress  of  the  work  be  made  by  the 
^  American  Commissioners  to  Congress  at  the  beginning  of  the  next  session. 

^  The  American  commissioners  have  rendered  a  full  report  of  all 
p  their  acts,  up  to  this  time,  which  I  herewith  transmit.  It  appears 
^  from  this  re])ort  that  the  commission  still  has  two  pieces  of  work  to 
^  complete  before  it  can  properly  go  out  of  existence. 

^  One  is  its  final  report  upon  a  dam  at  the  outlet  of  Lake  Erie,  a 
difficult  and  important  question  upon  which  it  has  expended  a  vast 
amount  of  labor.  It  should  be  allowed  to  finish  this  work,  to  clear  the 
,  'ground  for  its  successor,  the  International  Joint  Commission,  which 
^  will  consider  all  future  questions  of  this  nature.  I  am  informed  that 
_  the  report  has  been  delayed,  and  may  be  further  delayed,  by  the  ill- 
^  ness  and  absence  in  Europe  of  one  of  the  Canadian  engineers,  but  that 
^  it  can  probably  be  completed  within  a  few  months,  certainly  before 
^  the  completion  of  the  other  piece  of  unfinished  work, 
i  The  other  is  to  ascertain  and  reestablish,  to  mark  upon  the  ground, 
'and  to  delineate  upon  modern  charts,  the  location  of  a  portion  of  the 
J  international  boundary  between  the  United  States  and  Canada,  which 
work  was  specifically  assigned  to  the  International  Waterways  Com- 
y  mission  by  Article  IV  of  the  treaty  between  the  United  States  and 
Great  Britain,  dated  April  11,  1908.  This  work,  the  commission 
states,  can  not  be  completed  by  December  31,  1912,  but  will  require 
.^from  a  year  to  15  months  more  time  beyond  that  date. 

■  J  The  work  of  the  commission  has  been  of  a  high  order,  and  has  been 
prosecuted  with  diligence.  International  courtesy,  as  well  as  treaty 
^obligations,  require  that  the  commission  be  allowed  to  complete  its 
^work.  I  recommend  that  the  items  to  be  found  in  the  estimates  for 
(fjits  support  during  the  second  half  of  the  current  fiscal  year,  and  for 
a  part  of  the  next  fiscal  year,  receive  the  favorable  consideration  of 
t^yCongress. 

^  Wm.  H.  Taft. 

^  The  White  House,  December  8,  1912. 


3 


Digitized  by  the  Internet  Archive 
in  2019  with  funding  from 

University  of  Illinois  Urbana-Champaign  Alternates 


https://archive.org/details/progressreportme00inte_0 


PKOGRESS  REPORT. 


International  Waterways  Commission, 

Office  of  Chairman,  American  Section, 

^yasllin(Jton,  D.  0.,  November  27,  1912. 

The  Secretary  of  War, 

Washington,  D.  C. 

vSir:  1.  The  act  making  appropriations  for  sundry  civil  expenses  of 
the  Government,  approved  August  24,  1912,  contained  the  following 
item,  viz: 

For  continuing  until  December  thirty-first,  nineteen  hundred  and  twelve,  the  work 
of  investigation  and  report  by  the  International  Waterways  Commission,  authorized 
by  section  four  of  the  river  and  harbor  act  approved  June  thirteenth,  nineteen  hundred 
and  two,  $10,000:  Provided,  That  report  as  to  the  progress  of  the  work  be  made  by  the 
American  commissioners  to  Congress  at  the  beginning  of  the  next  session. 

In  compliance  with  tliese  instructions  the  American  commissioners 
have  the  honor  to  submit  the  following  report  for  transmission  to 
Congress. 

2.  The  International  Waterways  Commission  originated  with  sec¬ 
tion  4  of  the  act  of  Congress  making  appropriations  for  rivers  and 
harbors  approved  June  13,  1902,  which  reads  as  follows: 

That  the  President  of  the  United  States  is  hereby  requested  to  invite  the  Govern¬ 
ment  of  Great  Britain  to  join  in  the  formation  of  an  international  commission,  to  be 
composed  of  three  members  from  the  United  States  and  three  who  shall  represent  the 
interests  of  the  Dominion  of  Canada,  whose  duty  it  shall  be  to  investigate  and  report 
upon  the  conditions  and  uses  of  the  waters  adjacent  to  the  boundary  lines  between 
the  United  States  and  Canada,  including  all  of  the  waters  of  the  lakes  and  rivers  whose 
natural  outlet  is  by  the  River  Saint  Lawrence  to  the  Atlantic  Ocean,  also  upon  the 
maintenance  and  regulation  of  suitable  levels,  and  also  upon  the  effect  upon  the  shores 
of  these  waters  and  the  structures  thereon,  and  upon  the  interests  of  navigation  by 
reason  of  the  diversion  of  these  waters  from  or  change  in  their  natural  flow;  and,  further, 
to  report  upon  the  necessary  measures  to  regulate  such  diversion,  and  to  make  such 
recommendations  for  improvements  and  regulations  as  shall  best  subserve  the  inter¬ 
ests  of  navigation  in  said  waters.  The  said  commissioners  shall  report  upon  the  advisa¬ 
bility  of  locating  a  dam  at  the  outlet  of  Lake  Erie,  with  a  view  to  determining  whether 
such  dam  will  benefit  navigation,  and  if  such  structure  is  deemed  advisable  shall 
make  recommendations  to  their  respective  Governments  looking  to  an  agreement  or 
treaty  which  shall  provide  for  the  construction  of  the  same,  and  they  shall  make  an 
estimate  of  the  probable  cost  thereof.  The  President  in  selecting  the  three  members 
of  said  commission  who  shall  represent  the  United  States  is  authorized  to  appoint 
one  officer  of  the  Corps  of  Engineers  of  the  United  States  Army,  one  civil  engineer 
well  versed  in  the  hydraulics  of  the  Great  Lakes,  and  one  lawyer  of  experience  in 
questions  of  international  and  riparian  law,  and  said  commission  shall  be  authorized 
to  employ  such  persons  as  it  may  deem  needful  in  the  performance  of  the  duties 
hereby  imposed;  and  for  the  purpose  of  paying  the  expenses  and  salaries  of  said  com¬ 
mission  the  Secretary  of  War  is  authorized  to  expend  from  the  amounts  heretofore 
appropriated  for  the  Saint  Marys  River  at  the  Falls  the  sum  of  twenty  thousand  dollars, 
or  so  much  thereof  as  may  be  necessary  to  pay  that  portion  of  the  expenses  of  said 
commission  chargeable  to  the  United  States. 

3.  The  invitation  here  authorized  was  duly  eomnninicated  to  the 
Government  of  Great  Britain  by  the  American  ambassador  in  London, 
by  letter  dated  July  15,  1902,  and  was  accepted  by  letter  from  the 

5 


6  INTERNATIONAL  WATERWAA'S  COMMISSION  PROGRESS  REPORT. 


British  foreign  office  dated  June  2,  1903.  The  American  members 
were  appointed  October  2,  1903.  They  were  Col.  O.  H.  Ernst,  Corps, 
of  Engineers,  United  States  Army  (now  brigadier  general,  retired); 
Mr.  George  Clinton,  of  Buffalo,  N.  Y.,  and  Prof.  Gardner  S.  Williams, 
of  Ithaca,  N.  Y.  In  1905  Prof.  Williams  resigned  and  was  succeeded 
by  Mr.  George  Y.  Wisner.  Mr.  Wisner  died  in  1906  and  was  suc¬ 
ceeded  by  Prof.  Eugene  E.  Haskell,  of  Ithaca,  N.  Y.,  dean  of  the  civil 
engineering  department  of  Cornell  University.  There  was  a  delay  of 
several  years  in  the  appointment  of  the  Canadian  members.  Finally 
on  the  10th  of  January,  1905,  the  following-named  gentlemen  were 
appointed,  viz:  Mr.  J.  P.  Mabee,  K.  C.,  Dr.  W.  F.  King,  chief  astron¬ 
omer  of  the  Dominion,  and  Mr.  Louis  Coste,  C.  E.  Subsequently,  in 
November,  1905,  Mr.  Mabee  was  appointed  judge  of  the  supreme 
court  of  judicature  for  Ontario  and  was  replaced  on  the  commission 
by  Mr.  Geo.  C.  Gibbons  (now  Sir  George  C.  Gibbons,  K.  C.),  and  in 
February,  1907,  Dr.  King  resigned  and  was  replaced  by  Mr.  W.  J. 
Stewart,  chief  hydrographer  of  the  Dominion. 

4.  The  American  section  held  its  first  meeting  in  Washington,  D.  C., 
May  10,  1905.  The  written  instructions  which  it  received  from  the 
United  States  Government  are  contained  in  the  following  letter: 

Department  of  State, 

Washington,  April  15,  1905. 

Sir:  Referring  to  your  letter  of  the  10th  ultimo,  asking  as  to  the  instructions  which 
may  be  required  by  the  American  commissioners  appointed  under  section  4  of  the 
river  and  harbor  act  of  1902  (32  Stat.  L.,  373),  especially  in  regard  to  a  question  which 
you  state  is  likely  to  arise  concerning  the  scope  of  the  commission’s  investigation, 
the  Canadian  members  appearing  to  be  disposed  to  regard  it  as  taking  in  all  waters 
adjacent  to  the  boundary  line,  whether  part  of  the  Great  Lakes  or  not,  I  have  to  state 
as  follows: 

The  wording  of  the  law  will  be  seen  by  reference  to  the  inclosed  copy.  The  depart¬ 
ment’s  opinion  is  that  the  words  “including  all  of  the  waters  of  the  lakes  and  rivers 
whose  natural  outlet  is  by  the  river  St.  Lawrence  to  the  Atlantic  Ocean”  are  intended 
as  a  limitation  on  what  precedes  them,  and  that  the  investigation  and  report  should 
cover  only  such  waters,  omitting  the  lower  St.  Lawrence  itself  as  well  as  all  other 
waters  not  discharging  naturally  through  it. 

The  broader  interpretation  given  to  the  act  by  the  Canadian  authorities  should  be 
rejected,  if  for  no  other  reason  on  account  of  the  smallness  of  the  appropriation  for  the 
support  of  the  American  section.  Congress  could  hardly  have  intended  to  provide 
with  a  sum  of  $20,000  for  the  expenses  incident  to  an  investigation  extending  to  the 
Pacific  coast,  and  possibly  embracing  the  Alaskan  boundary  as  well. 

A  portion  of  the  report  of  the  chairman  of  the  River  and  Harbor  Committee,  when 
reporting  the  bill  (copy  of  act  herewith),  treats  of  section  4,  and  would  appear  to  limit 
the  scope  of  the  investigation  to  the  Great  Lakes  system. 

When  the  ground  to  be  covered  has  been  defined,  the  law  itself  appears  to  be  suffi¬ 
ciently  detailed  to  serve  as  instructions  to  the  American  commissioners. 

It  seems  sufficient,  therefore,  at  the  present  stage  to  inform  you  and  the  other  mem¬ 
bers  of  the  American  section  of  the  views  held  by  the  Department  as  to  the  scope  of  the 
investigation  and  report,  and  to  request  the  American  commissioners  to  assemble 
and  organize  as  soon  as  possible  after  the  20th  instant,  at  this  capital,  and  to  submit, 
after  discussion,  their  own  recommendations  as  to  further  procedure. 

I  inclose,  also,  for  your  information  copies  of  letters  from  Col.  Ernst  and  Prof. 
Williams  in  regard  to  the  place  of  meeting  of  the  commission. 

Copies  of  your  letter  of  the  10th  ultimo,  and  of  this,  the  department’s  reply,  have 
been  addressed  to  Col.  Ernst  and  Prof.  Williams  for  their  guidance. 

I  am,  sir,  your  obedient  servant, 

F.  B.  Loomis, 

Acting  Secretary. 

Geo.  Clinton,  Esq., 

Commissioner  of  the  United  States, 

International  Waterways  Commission, 

1012  Prudential  Building,  Buffalo,  N.  Y. 


INTERNATIONAL  WATERWAYS  COMMISSION  PROGRESS  REPORT.  7 

In  a  conference  with  the  honorable  Secretary  of  War,  it  was  decided 
by  him  that  the  work  of  the  commission  should  be  under  the  War 
Department.  Subsequently  the  Secretary  of  AVar  gave  instructions 
that  the  Department  of  State  be  furnished  with  copies  of  all  of^the 
commission’s  reports. 

5.  On  the  25th  of  May,  1905,  the  full  commission  held  its  first 
meeting  in  AA'ashington,  1).  C.  A  difference  soon  arose  as  to  the  scope 
of  the  investigation  to  be  undertaken.  The  Canadian  members 
desired  to  consider  all  international  waters  between  the  Atlantic  and 
Pacific  Oceans,  and  interpreted  the  act  of  Congress  originating  the 
commission  to  give  them  authority  to  do  that,  while  the  American 
members  were  by  their  instructions  limited  to  the  waters  forming 
part  of  the  Great  Lakes  system.  It  was  decided  that  further  proceed- 
mgs  be  deferred  until  further  instruction  be  received  from  the  two 
Governments.  The  fmal  result  was  that  the  instructions  to  the  Amer¬ 
ican  members  were  left  unaltered,  and  the  Canadian  members  were 
authorized  to  proceed  with  the  work  of  the  commission  within  the 
field  prescribed  to  the  former.  The  full  commission  held  its  second 
meetmg  at  Toronto,  June  14,  1905,  upon  which  date  it  may  be  said 
that  the  work  of  the  commission  began,  although  it  was  some  months 
later  when  their  offices  became  available. 

6.  Some  of  the  rules  of  procedure  adopted  were  the  following: 
The  offices  of  the  Canadian  section  were  to  be  established  in  Toronto 
and  those  of  the  American  section  in  Buffalo.  Meetmgs  of  the  full 
commission  were  to  be  held  in  one  or  the  other  city  as  should  be 
found  most  convenient,  but  usually  alternating  between  the  two. 
At  meetings  of  the  full  commission  held  on  American  territory  the 
chairman  of  the  American  section  should  preside,  and  at  meetings 
held  on  Canadian  territory  the  chairman  of  the  Canadian  section 
should  preside.  To  enable  all  persons  to  appear  before  the  com¬ 
mission  or  to  address  it,  who  might  wish  to  do  so,  public  notice  of  all 
meetmgs  was  to  be  given  as  long  in  advance  as  possible  through  the 
press  of  the  principal  cities  of  the  Great  Lakes  and  St.  Lawrence 
system.  Stenographic  notes  were  to  be  taken  of  the  proceedings 
of  all  public  meetings,  but  in  order  to  insure  greater  freedom  of  dis¬ 
cussion  they  were  to  be  omitted  at  executive  sessions.  At  first  the 
intervals  between  the  meetmgs  were  irregular,  but  later  on  it  was 
found  best  to  adjourn  each  meetmg  to  some  fixed  date  about  one 
month  in  advance. 

7.  Through  the  courtesy  of  the  honorable  Secretary  of  the  Treas¬ 
ury  excellent  quarters  in  the  Federal  building  in  Buffalo  were  assigned 
to  the  use  of  the  American  section,  completely  furnished  and  ar¬ 
ranged  with  temporary  partitions  to  suit  its  convenience  in  every 
respect.  These  rooms  became  available  September  11,  1905.  Sub¬ 
sequently  a  branch  office  was  established  in  Wasliington  in  a  room 
rented  for  the  purpose.  The  section  was  fortunate  enough  to  secure 
the  services,  as  secretary,  of  Mr.  L.  C.  Sabin,  a  hvdraulic  engineer  of 
many  years’  e:^erience  in  the  service  of  the  Government  on  the 
Great  Lakes.  He  reported  for  duty  August  1,  1905.  He  resigned 
one  year  later  to  accept  the  position  of  superintendent  of  the  Sault 
Ste.  Marie  Canal  and  was  succeeded  by  Mr.  W.  E.  AATlson,  an  accom¬ 
plished  hydraulic  engineer,  who  had  also  had  experience  in  the 
Government  service  on  the  Great  Lakes.  In  perfecting  its  organ¬ 
ization  the  American  section  kept  in  view  the  necessity  of  collecting. 


8  INTEENATIONAL  WATERWAYS  COMMISSION  PROGRESS  REPORT. 

arranging,  and  studying  all  of  the  complicated  data  bearing  upon 
the  technical  subjects  which  it  had  to  consider,  which  were  mainly 
of  an  engineering  character.  Its  staff  and  its  offices  were  selected 
and  arranged  accordingly. 

8.  Among  the  questions  brought  to  the  attention  of  the  commis¬ 
sion  at  its  earlier  meetings  beside  the  one  specifically  mentioned  in 
the  law,  ^Hhe  advisability  of  locating  a  dam  at  the  outlet  of  Lake 
Erie,”  were  the  following,  viz: 

(a)  The  uses  of  the  waters  at  Sault  Ste.  Marie  for  power  purposes 
and  the  regulations  necessary  to  insure  an  equitable  division  of  the 
waters  between  the  two  countries  and  the  protection  of  the  naviga¬ 
tion  interests. 

(b)  The  uses  of  the  waters  in  the  Niagara  Kiver  for  power  purposes 
and  the  regulations  necessary  to  insure  an  equitable  division  of  the 
waters  between  the  two  countries  and  the  protection  of  Niagara  Falls 
as  a  scenic  spectacle. 

(c)  The  alleged  differences  in  marine  regulations  of  the  two  coun¬ 
tries  with  respect  to  signal  lights,  and  the  advisability  of  adopting 
uniform  signals  for  both  countries.^ 

(d)  The  diversion  southward  by  the  Minnesota  Canal  &  Power 
Co.,  of  Duluth,  of  certain  waters  in  the  State  of  Minnesota  that  now 
flow  north  into  the  Rainy  River  and  the  I^ake  of  the  Woods. 

(e)  The  effect  of  the  Chicago  Drainage  Canal  upon  the  levels  of 
Lakes  ^Rchigan,  Huron,  Erie,  and  Ontario,  and  upon  the  River  St. 
Lawrence. 

(/)  Delimiting  the  international  boundary  on  the  international 
waterways  and  delineating  the  same  on  modern  charts. 

ig)  The  su])pression  or  abatement  of  illegal  fishing  on  the  Great 
Lakes. 

(h)  The  location  and  construction  of  common  channels. 

(i)  Regulations  to  govern  navigation  in  narrow  channels. 

(j)  Protection  of  shores  from  damage  due  to  deepening  of  chan¬ 
nels  and  increased  speed. 

As  some  of  these  questions  did  not  come  under  the  jurisdiction  of 
the  commission  as  constituted  they  have  not  been  the  subject  of 
special  reports.  Other  questions  subsequently  arose  from  time  to 
time,  as  will  appear  hereafter. 

NIAGARA  RIVER. 

9.  Upon  taking  up  the  subject  of  the  Niagara  River  the  commis¬ 
sion  found  that  great  amounts  of  capital  had  been,  and  were  con¬ 
tinuing  to  be,  invested  in  power  works  at  Niagara  Falls  by  private 
corporations  under  the  authority  of  the  State  of  New  York  or  of  the 
Province  of  Ontario.  Many  millions  of  dollars  had  been  expended 
in  the  works  themselves  and  many  millions  more  in  the  industrial 
enterprises  to  which  they  furnished  jiower.  In  addition  to  the  five 
principal  corporations  actually  engaged  in  the  development  of  water 
power,  there  were  several  other  corporations  preparing  to  engage  in 
that  work  under  franchises  some  of  which  had  been  granted  and 
others  of  which  were  being  sought  for.  The  total  destruction  of 
Niagara  Falls  as  a  scenic  spectacle  was  threatened.  It  seemed  de¬ 
sirable  that  this  movement  should  be  checked  without  delay,  and  as 


1  It  was  found,  upon  investigation,  that  no  difference  existed,  the  Canadian  Government  having  adopted 
the  regulations  established  by  the  United  States. 


INTEHXATIONAL  WATERWAYS  COM  MISSION  PROGRESS  REPORT.  9 


the  oolloftioii  of  all  the  data  and  the  j)reparati()n  ot  a  lull  rej)ort 
would  re((uire  time,  the  commission  at  its  meeting  of  October  28, 
1905,  ])assed  the  following  resolution,  of  which  cojues  were  sent  to 
the  Secretary  of  War  of  the  United  States  and  the  minister  of  |)ublic 
works  of  Canada,  viz: 

Resolved,  That  this  commission  recommends  to  the  Governments  of  the  United 
States  and  Canada  that  such  steps  as  they  may  regard  as  necessary  be  taken  to  prevent 
any  cor])orate  rights  or  franchises  being  granted  or  renewed  by  either  Federal,  State, 
or  Provincial  authority  for  the  use  of  the  waters  of  the  Niagara  River  for  power  or 
other  purposes  until  this  commission  is  able  to  collect  the  information  necessary  to 
■enable  it  to  report  fully  upon  the  “conditions  and  uses”  of  those  waters  to  the  respec¬ 
tive  Governments  of  the  United  States  and  Canada. 

10.  By  March,  1906,  the  information  necessary  for  a  report  had 
been  collected,  public  hearings  had  been  held,  and  an  original  map 
of  the  locality,  specially  constructed  for  the  purpose,  had  l3een  pre¬ 
pared,  when  Congress  passed  the  following  joint  resolution,  aT)proved 
March  15,  1906,  viz: 

Resolved  hy  the  Senate  and  House  of  Representatives  of  the  United  States  of  America 
in  Congress  assembled,  That  the  members  representing  the  United  States  upon  the 
international  commission  created  by  section  four  of  the  river  and  harbor  act  of  June 
thirteenth,  nineteen  hundred  and  two,  be  requested  to  report  to  Congress  at  an  early 
day  what  action  is,  in  their  judgment,  necessary  and  desirable  to  prevent  the  further 
depletion  of  water  flowing  over  Niagara  Falls;  and  the  said  members  are  also  requested 
and  directed  to  exert,  in  conjunction  with  the  members  of  said  commission  represent¬ 
ing  the  Dominion  of  Canada,  if  practicable,  all  possible  efforts  for  the  preservation 
of  the  said  Niagara  Falls  in  their  natural  condition. 

Tlie  American  section  accordingly  submitted  a  report,  dated  March 
19,  1906.  It  was  published  as  Senate  Document  No.  242,  Fifty- 
ninth  Congress,  first  session.  It  was  subsecpiently  concurred  in  sub¬ 
stantially  by  the  Canadian  section,  and  the  joint  report  of  tlie  full 
commission,  dated  May  3,  1906,  was  published  as  Senate  Document 
No.  434,  Fifty-ninth  Congress,  first  session. 

11.  The  report  of  March  19  was  followed  by  an  exhaustive  inves¬ 
tigation  of  the  subject  by  the  Rivers  and  Harbors  Committee  of  the 
House  of  Rejmesentatives,  who,  during  several  weeks,  held  public 
hearings  in  Wasliington,  at  whicli  all  persons  interested  were  given 
an  o])portunity  to  be  heard,  and  who  sent  a  subcommittee  to  Niagara 
Falls,  where  a  tliorough  inspection  of  the  works  was  made,  and  where 
also  there  was  a  public  hearing.  Tlie  result  was  a  confirmation  of  the 
rejiort  in  all  essential  particulars. 

12.  An  ‘‘act  for  the  control  and  regulation  of  the  waters  of  Niagara 
River,  for  the  preservation  of  Niagara  Falls,  and  for  other  purposes,” 
apjiroved  June  29,  1906,  was  then  passed  by  Congress.  It  authorized 
the  Secretary  of  War  to  grant  jiermits  for  the  diversion  of  water  on 
the  American  side,  and  for  the  transmission  of  electrical  ])ower  from 
Canada,  under  certain  jirescribed  conditions  and  to  certain  pre¬ 
scribed  limits.  The  total  amount  authorized  being  considerably  less 
than  the  amounts  apphed  for  by  the  power  comjianies,  a  more  detailed 
investigation,  which  should  embrace  jiarticularly  the  commercial 
and  financial  side  of  the  power-producing  industry  at  Niagara  Falls, 
became  necessary  to  insure  an  equitable  division  of  the  amounts  au¬ 
thorized.  Capt.  Charles  W.  Ivutz,  Corps  of  Engineers,  United  States 
Army,  was  detailed  by  the  Secretary  of  War  to  make  the  investiga¬ 
tion,  his  re])orts  to  be  submitted  to  the  American  section  for  review 
and  recommendation.  Under  these  instructions  the  American  sec¬ 
tion  submitted  two  reports,  dated  September  29,  1906  (Aj)pendix 


10  INTERNATIONAL  WATERWAYS  COMMISSION  PROGRESS  REPORT. 

A),  and  November  15,  1906  (Appendix  B),  respectively.  Special 
difficulties  having  arisen  in  granting  a  permit  for  the  diversion  of 
water  from  the  Erie  Canal,  the  American  section,  under  instructions 
from  the  Secretary  of  War,  caused  a  map  of  Lockport,  N.  Y.,  to  be 
prepared,  and  new  measurements  of  flow  to  be  made  at  that  place, 
and  under  date  of  March  5,  1907,  submitted  a  special  report  with  a 
form  of  permit.  (Appendix  C.) 

13.  Other  reports  relating  to  power  development  in  the  Niagara 
River  were  dated  September  9,  1907,  and  March  3,  1908.  The  first 
was  by  the  American  section,  and  related  to  a  letter  from  the  Niagara 
Falls  Hydraulic  Power  &  Manufacturing  Co.  to  the  Secretary  of  State, 
in  connection  with  the  treaty  then  under  negotiation  with  Great 
Britain.  (Appendix  D.)  The  second  was  by  the  full  commission, 
and  related  to  a  bill  to  authorize  the  diversion  of  water  below  the 
Falls,  which  had  been  referred  to  the  commission  by  the  Rivers  and 
Harbors  Committee  of  the  House  of  Representatives  of  the  United 
States.  (Appendix  E.) 

14.  During  the  summer  of  1908  the  works  of  the  Niagara  Falls 
Power  Co.  were  shut  down  on  three  occasions,  and  upon  one  of  these 
occasions  the  works  of  the  other  power  company  on  the  American 
side,  the  Niagara  Falls  Hydraulic  Power  &  Manufacturing  Co.,  also 
were  almost  completely  shut  down.  The  commission  having  been 
notified  in  advance  took  advantage  of  the  opportunity  to  observe  the 
effect  upon  the  river  and  the  Falls  of  the  diversion  or  nondiversion  of 
the  considerable  body  of  water  used  by  those  companies.  By  its 
direction  its  American  secretary  installed  water  gauges  at  various 
points  at  and  above  the  Falls  and  had  them  observed  before,  during, 
and  after  the  shutdowns,  and  afterwards  discussed  his  observations 
in  a  report.  The  conclusions  which  he  reached  were  that  the  diversion 
of  8,000  cubic  feet  per  second  through  these  plants  lower  the  level 
of  Niagara  River  at  Grass  Island  near  the  intake  of  the  Niagara  Falls 
Power  Co.  about  31  inches;  near  the  Ontario  intake  on  the  Canadian 
side  about  IJ  inches;  and  at  Prospect  Point,  the  crest  of  the  American 
Falls,  about  four-tenths  of  an  inch.  The  observations  are  a  valuable 
contribution  to  existing  knowledge  of  the  effect  of  power  diversion 
upon  the  Falls. 

SAULT  STE.  MARIE. 

15.  Upon  taking  up  the  subject  of  the  uses  of  the  waters  at  Sault 
Ste.  Marie  for  power  pur])oses  the  commission  found  that  on  either 
side  of  the  rapids  was  a  navigation  canal,  constructed  by  the 
United  States  and  Canadian  Governments  respectively.  The  traffic 
through  those  canals  had  reached  enormous  proportions,  far  exceed¬ 
ing  that  of  any  other  two  canals  in  the  w^orld,  and  was  rapidly 
increasing.  After  providing  liberally  foi'  the  service  of  these  canals 
there  remained  available  for  powder  purposes  a  volume  of  water 
which  was  large,  but  was  not  large  enough  to  provide  for  all  of  the 
schemes  of  development  wdiich  had  been  projected.  On  the  Canadian 
side  a  private  corporation  was  operating  one  power  canal  and  had 
projected  another,  which,  together  with  the  first,  would  take  about 
half  the  surplus  flow  of  the  rapids.  On  the  Amei’ican  side  a  j)Ower 
canal  had  been  constructed  by  a  private  corporation,  leaving  the  St.  * 
Marys  River  above  the  rapids,  passing  through  the  city  of  Sault  Ste. 


INTERNATIONAL  WATERWAYS  COMMISSION  PROGRESS  REPORT.  11 


Marie,  Midi.,  and  rejoiniii"  the  river  about  a  mile  below  tlie  rapids, 
thus  constituting  a  new  and  separate  outlet  to  Lake  Supeiior.  1  he 
ultimate  capacit}^  of  this  canal  was  about  half  the  surjdus  How  of  the 
rapids,  though  only  onc-quarter  of  its  capacity  was  actually  in  use. 
On  the  American  side,  also,  power  woi-ks  in  the  bed  of  the  stream 
wei*e  in  o])eration,  using  a  moderate  volume  of  water,  but  they  were 
being  altered  and  improved  so  as  to  increase  their  capacity,  and  it 
was  not  clear  that  their  owners  could  not  claim  a  legal  right  to  half 
the  sur])lus  flow  of  the  rapids.  It  was  evident  that  some  under¬ 
standing  must  be  reached  by  which  there  should  be  an  equitable 
division  of  the  surplus  water  between  the  two  sides  of  the  inter¬ 
national  boundary,  and  that  until  that  was  done  further  dev(dopment 
should  be  reduced  to  a  minimum.  Moreover,  the  works  affected  the 
level  of  Lake  Superior  and  the  vast  navigation  interests  dependent 
thereon,  and  it  w^as  desirable  that  the  regulations  to  govern  their 
operation  should  be  known,  so  far  as  w'as  then  jiossible,  in  advance 
of  their  construction.  The  commission  therefoi-e  passed  at  its  ses¬ 
sion  of  October  28,  1905,  the  following  resolution,  of  which  copies 
were  sent  to  the  Secretary  of  War  of  the  United  States  and  the  min¬ 
ister  of  public  works  of  Canada,  viz: 

Resolved,  That  in  the  opinion  of  this  commission  no  further  rights  or  privileges 
should  be  granted  or  conferred  regarding  the  uses  or  diversions  of  the  water  flowing 
out  of  Lake  Superior  by  either  the  Government  of  the  United  States  or  Canada, 
until  all  data  and  information  are  in  the  hands  of  the  commission  that  may  be  ne(  es- 
sary  to  enable  it  to  make  suggestions  for  regulating  the  excess  of  these  waters,  or  that, 
if  such  rights  or  privileges  be  granted,  they  be  subject  to  any  regulations  that  may  be 
adopted  by  both  Governments. 

16.  On  the  3d  of  Ma}^  1906,  tlie  commission  submitted  to  the  two 
Governments  a  joint  report  upon  the  conditions  existing  at  Sault 
Ste.  iMarie,  in  wdiich  wwe  the  following  recommendations,  viz: 

(а)  That  no  permit  shall  be  granted  for  the  use  of  the  waters  of  St.  Marys  River, 
or  for  the  erection  of  structures  in,  under,  or  over,  or  the  occupation  in  any  manner 
of,  the  said  waters  until  plans  have  been  submitted  to  the  commission  for  its  inves¬ 
tigation  and  recommendation,  and  the  use  of  the  waters  under  such  permits  shall 
not  be  allowed  except  upon  compliance  with  the  rules  hereinafter  recommended. 

(б)  The  commission  further  recommends  that  no  grants,  permits,  or  concessions 
should  be  made  which  directly  or  by  operation  of  law  may  in  any  manner  affect 
the  right  of  the  United  States  or  of  Canada  to  control  the  bed  of  the  St.  Marys  River 
below  high-water  mark,  and  especially  that  none  should  be  made  which,  legally  or 
equitably,  may  be  the  means  of  adding  to  the  expense  of  acquiring  lands  or  rights 
for  the  purpose  of  making  improvements  in  aid  of  navigation,  or  which  may  give 
an  equitable  right  to  compensation  in  case  of  the  removal  of  structures  in  said  river. 

Xc)  That  steps  be  taken  to  increase  the  lockage  facilities  at  Sault  Ste.  Marie  with¬ 
out  unnecessary  delay. 

{d)  That  the  Governments  of  the  United  States  and  Canada  reserve  all  water 
necessary  for  navigation  puiposes,  at  present  or  in  the  future,  and  the  surplus  shall  be 
divided  equally  between  the  two  countries  for  power  purposes. 

(e)  As  the  commission  regards  the  interests  of  the  United  States  and  Canada  in 
the  pieservation  of  the  lake  levels  and  in  the  improvement  of  the  channels  and  the 
conservation  of  the  water  supply  for  purposes  of  navigation  as  identical  and  as 
incapable  of  efficient  protection  without  joint  and  harmonious  action  on  the  part 
of  the  two  Governments,  it  recommends  that  the  rules  hereinafter  set  forth  be  adopted 
and  that  a  joint  commission  be  created  to  supervise  their  enforcement,  or  that  such 
powers  be  vested  in  the  existing  International  Waterways  Commission,  subject  to 
such  restrictions  and  reservations  as  may  be  deemed  advisable. 

The  report  was  transmitted  by  tlie  Secretary  of  War  to  the  Sec¬ 
retary  of  State  with  the  following  indorsement,  dated  May  14, 
1906,  viz: 

Respectfully  referred  to  the  Secretary  of  State  with  a  request  that  after  the  report 
be  read  it  be  forwarded  to  the  President  as  a  basis  for  negotiations  looking  to  the 


12  INTEKNATIONAL  WATERWAYS  COMMISSION  PROGRESS  REPORT. 


adoption  of  a  treaty  carrying  into  effect  the  recommendations  of  the  International 
Waterways  Commission,  the  report  of  which  is  approved  so  far  as  this  department 
is  concerned. 

Embodiec]  in  the  report  were  a  series  of  rules  and  regulations  to 
govern  the  use  of  water  at  the  Sault.  They  were  based  upon  the 
regulations  already  established  for  the  American  side  by  the  Sec¬ 
retary  of  Wai'  of  the  United  States,  but  were  extended  in  their  appli¬ 
cation,  and,  like  them,  they  recognized  the  following  principles  as 
fundamental:  (1)  Levels  must  be  maintained;  (2)  navigation  must 
be  protected;  (3)  the  public  must  reserve  the  right  to  use  any  portion 
or  all  of  the  natural  flow  in  the  future;  (4)  the  use  of  the  water  is 
not  granted  to  the  power  companies  in  any  fixed  quantity  or  for 
any  fixed  length  of  time,  but  the  Government  may  enter  upon  the 
property  and  shut  off  the  flow  in  whole  or  in  part  at  any  time  to  the 
extent  necessary  to  maintain  water  levels.  The  enforcement  of 
these  rules  involved  the  creation  of  a  permanent  international  com¬ 
mission,  and  it  was  not  until  the  creation  of  the  International  Joint 
Commission  by  the  treaty  between  the  United  States  and  Great  Brit¬ 
ain,  dated  January  11,  1909,  that  it  became  practicable  to  put  them 
in  force.  At  the  same  time  the  creation  of  that  commission  relieved 
this  commission  of  all  further  consideration  of  the  subject.  A  full 
copy  of  the  report  of  May  3,  1906,  is  hereto  appended.  (Appendix  F.) 

MINNESOTA  CANAL  &  POW’^ER  CO. 

17.  The  Minnesota  Canal  &  Power  Co.,  a  corporation  organized 
under  the  laws  of  Minnesota,  proposed  to  construct  reservoirs  in  the 
Birch  Lake  Basin  in  Minnesota,  in  which  water  was  to  be  stored  and 
from  which  it  w^as  to  be  released  as  needed  and  conducted  by  artificial 
and  natural  channels  southward  to  Duluth,  where  it  was  to  be 
employed  in  generating  electrical  power.  The  natural  drainage  of 
the  Birch  Lake  Basin  is  northward  into  Kainy  River,  Lake-of-the- 
Woods,  Winnipeg  River,  Winnipeg  Lake,  and  finally  into  Hudson 
Bay,  the  water  thus  forming  a  part  of  the  international  boundary 
and  finally  entering  territory  which  is  exclusively  Canadian.  The 
company  applied  to  the  Department  of  the  Interior  for  permission 
to  use  certain  public  lands  by  flowage  and  otherwise  and  to  the  War 
Department  for  approval  of  certain  structures  designed  to  impound 
the  water.  Opposition  to  the  scheme  was  offered  by  citizens  of 
Canada  through  the  British  ambassador  at  Washington,  and  the 
Secretary  of  State  by  letter  to  the  Secretary  of  War,  dated  May  14, 
1906,  requested  that  the  matter  be  referred  to  this  commission  for 
an  expression  of  its  view^s.  On  the  15th  of  November,  1906,  the 
commission  rendered  a  joint  report  to  the  two  Governments,  which 
closed  with  the  following  recommendations,  viz: 

(а)  The  commission  would  therefore  recommend  that  the  permit  applied  for  be 
not  grant  id  without  the  concurrence  of  the  Canadian  Government. 

(б)  As  questions  involving  the  same  principles  and  difficulties  liable  to  create 
friction,  hostile  feelings,  and  reprisals  are  liable  to  arise  between  the  two  countries 
affecting  waters  on  or  crossing  the  boundary  line,  the  commission  would  recommend 
that  a  treaty  be  entered  into  which  shall  settle  the  rules  and  principles  upon  which 
all  such  questions  may  be  peacefully  and  satisfactorily  determined  as  they  arise. 

(c)  The  commission  would  recommend  that  any  treaty  which  may  be  entered  into 
should  define  the  uses  to  which  international  waters  may  be  put  by  either  country 
without  the  necessity  of  adiustment  in  each  instance,  and  would  respectfully  suggest 


INTERNATIONAL  WATERWAYS  COMMISSION  PROGRESS  REPORT.  13 

that  such  uses  should  be  declared  to  be:  Use  for  necessary  domestic  and  sanitary 
purposes;  service  of  locks  used  for  navigation  purposes;  the  right  to  navigate. 

(d)  The  commission  would  also  respectfully  suggest  that  the  treaty  should  prohibit 
the  permanent  diversion  of  navigable  streams  which  cross  the  international  boundary 
or  -which  form  a  })art  thereof,  except  upon  adjustment  of  the  rights  of  all  parties 
concerned  by  a  permanent  commission  and  with  its  consent. 

A  copy  of  the  report  is  hereto  appended.  (Ap})endix  G.) 

RAINY  RIVER  AND  RIVER  ST.  JOHN. 

18.  On  the  2d  day  of  ^fay,  1907,  the  Canadian  Government  referred 
to  the  commission  certain  documents  relating  to  the  Rainy  River 
and  on  the  9th  of  May  certain  other  documents  relating  to  the  River 
St.  John.  Neither  of  these  rivers  being  tributary  to  the  Great  Lakes 
and  St.  LawTence  system,  neither  of  them  came  within  the  limits  pre¬ 
scribed  to  the  American  members  under  the  instructions  which  they 
received  in  1905.  In  deference  to  the  Canadian  Government,  however, 
the  question  of  jurisdiction  was  submitted  for  the  consideration  of 
higher  authority  by  letter  to  the  Secretary  of  War,  dated  November  6, 
1907.  The  ])revious  instructions  were  not  altered,  and  the  questions 
concerning  these  rivers  were  not  considered. 


RICHELIEU  RIVER. 

19.  The  IGchelieu  River  connects  Lake  Champlain  in  American 
territory  with  the  St.  I^awrence  River  in  Canadian  territory.  The 
International  Development  Co.,  a  corporation  organized  under  the 
laws  of  Canada  and  also  under  the  laws  of  New  Jersey,  proposed  to 
deepen  the  Richelieu  River  and  regulate  its  flow  so  that  there  should 
be  a  uniform  discharge  of  9,000  cubic  feet  per  second  throughout  the 
year.  For  this  purpose  it  proposed  to  use  Lake  Champlain  as  a 
reservoir,  in  which  surplus  water  was  to  be  stored  during  the  wet 
season  and  from  which  it  was  to  be  released  during  the  low- water 
period.  The  works  were  to  be  located  in  Canadian  waters,  but  would 
have  an  important  effect  upon  American  waters,  including  Lake 
Champlain.  Under  date  of  November  2,  1906,  the  comj)anv  made 
application  to  the  War  Department  of  the  United  States  for  per¬ 
mission  to  construct  the  works,  which  a])phcation  was  referred  by 
the  Secretary  of  War  to  the  chairman  of  the  American  section  by 
indorsement  of  November  6,  1906,  and  was  by  him  laid  before  the 
commission.  The  commission  found  that  a  uniform  flow  of  9,000 
cubic  feet  per  second  could  not  be  maintained  at  all  seasons  and  in  all 
years  without  giving  to  Lake  ChamjJain  a  range  between  the  extreme 
high  and  extreme  low  water  which  it  deemed  inadmissible,  but  that  it 
would  be  possible  to  plan  works  which  would  not  injuriously  affect  Jjake 
Cham])lain  and  would  materially  improve  the  conditions  of  flow  in 
the  Richelieu  River.  Under  date  of  November  15,  1906,  it  submitted 
a  joint  report  to  the  two  Governments  (Appendix  U),  from  which 
the  following  is  an  extract,  viz : 

As  Lake  Champlain  is  wholly  within  the  territory  of  the  United  States,  and  the 
pro])osed  works  are  wholly  within  Canadian  territory,  the  international  questions  raised 
are  of  some  moment.  It  is  in  our  o])inion  not  desirable  that  either  nation  should 
obstruct  the  natural  floAv  of  streams  crossing  the  international  boundary  to  the  injury 
of  public  or  private  rights  in  the  other.  It  is  manifest,  therefore,  that  the  a])])licants 
should  furnish  conclusive  evidence  that  private  rights  in  the  States  of  New  York  and 


14  INTEENATIONAL  WATERWAYS  COMMISSION  PROGRESS  REPORT. 


Vermont  adjoining  Lake  Champlain  will  not  be  injuriously  affected  by  the  alteration 
of  the  lake  level  as  proposed,  and  that  as  the  Secreary  of  War  of  the  United  States  has 
control  of  the  interests  of  navigation  on  Lake  Champlain,  the  said  work  should  not  be 
undertaken  without  his  permission,  and  should  be  operated  under  such  regulations 
as  he  may  direct,  with  a  view  to  the  maintenance  of  the  level  of  the  said  lake  as  the 
interests  of  navigation  thereon  may  require.  It  would  be  possible  to  plan  works 
adapted  to  the  conditions,  and  in  our  opinion  such  works  should  be  permitted,  pro¬ 
vided  they  do  not  interfere  with  private  interests  in  the  United  States  and  meet  with 
the  approval  of  the  Secretary  of  War  as  suggested.  We  respectfully  submit  that  in  any 
treaty  to  be  had  between  the  two  nations  in  relation  to  the  use  of  international  waters 
the  principles  above  suggested  should  have  consideration.  We  would  further  suggest 
that  the  applicant’s  Canadian  act  of  incorporation  should  be  amended,  so  as  to  provide 
that  the  maintenance  of  the  works  sought  to  be  erected  shall  be  conditional  at  all 
times  upon  compliance  with  all  regulations  imposed  by  the  Secretary  of  War  of  the 
United  States  of  America  from  tune  to  time  for  the  preservation  of  the  levels  of  Lake 
Champlain. 

20.  Under  the  direction  of  the  department  of  public  works  of 
Canada,  a  report  was  prepared  in  1902  upon  the  subject  of  damage 
by  overflow  of  the  Richelieu  River  and  a  plan  was  submitted  for 
correcting  the  evil.  At  its  session  of  1906,  the  Canadian  Parliament 
appropriated  110,000  for  beginning  the  works  proposed.  The  latter 
were  to  be  entirely  within  Canadian  territory,  but  inasmuch  as  they 
might  affect  the  interests  of  the  United  States  or  of  its  citizens  upon 
Lake  Champlain,  the  Canadian  Government  before  beginning  the  work 
referred  the  matter  to  the  International  Waterways  Commission. 
The  matter  was  considered  by  the  commission  at  its  session  of  October 
24,  1907,  and  the  following  resolution  was  passed,  of  which  copies 
were  sent  to  the  Secretary  of  War  of  the  United  States  and  the 
minister  of  public  works  cf  Canada,  viz:  ' 

Whereas  certain  valuable  lands  in  the  valley  of  the  Richelieu  River,  the  outlet  of 
Lake  Champlain,  are  subject  to  damage  by  overflow;  and 
Whereas  a  plan  for  the  reclamation  of  said  lands,  submitted  by  Resident  Engineer 
J.  B.  Michaud,  April  7,  1902,  to  the  Canadian  Government,  was  referred  by  that 
Government  to  the  International  Waterways  Commission  under  date  of  May  6, 
1907;  and 

Whereas  the  international  question  involved  relates  only  to  the  effect  of  the  proposed 
works  upon  the  interests  of  the  United  States  or  of  its  citizens  upon  Lake  Cham¬ 
plain;  and 

Whereas  the  average  level  of  Lake  Champlain  is  96.1  feet  above  tide  water,  and  the 
monthly  mean  level  during  floods  is  about  100, 

Resolved,  That  it  is  the  opinion  of  the  International  Waterways  Commission  that 
the  works  proposed  can  be  constructed  without  injury  to  the  interests  of  the  United 
States  or  its  citizens  upon  Lake  Champlain,  provided  a  movable  dam  be  constructed 
at  St.  Johns,  and  so  operated  that  the  flood  waters  of  Lake  Champlain  shall  be  allowed 
to  rise  to  a  monthly  mean  level  of  97  and  the  level  of  the  lake  shall  thereafter  be  main¬ 
tained  at  or  above  95. 

CHICAGO  DRAINAGE  CANAL. 

21.  On  the  4th  of  January,  1907,  the  full  commission  submitted  to 
the  two  Governments  a  report  upon  the  Chicago  Drainage  Canal, 
which  closed  with  the  following  summary  and  recommendations : 

SUMMARY, 

(а)  Chicago  obtains  its  water  supply  from  Lake  Michigan,  and  to  avoid  polluting  it 
must  either  dispose  of  its  sewage  otherwise  than  in  the  lake  or  place  its  intakes  for 
water  at  a  great  distance  from  the  city. 

(б)  The  topography  of  the  country  favors  the  discharge  of  the  sewage  into  the  Des 
Plaines  River,  a  tributary  of  the  Mississippi,  through  two  depressions  in  the  divide 
which  separates  that  river  from  Lake  Michigan. 

(c)  The  slope  on  the  lake  side  of  the  divide  is  drained  by  two  streams,  the  Chicago 
River  and  the  Calumet  River,  into  which  the  sewers  of  the  city  empty.  By  a  cut 


INTERNATIONAL  WATERWAYS  COMMISSION  PROGRESS  REPORT.  15 


through  the  northerly  depression  the  flow  of  the  Chicago  River  has  been  reversed  and 
diverted  into  the  Des  Plaines  River  instead  of  into  Lake  Michigan,  and  by  a  cut  through 
the  southerly  depression  the  same  process  can  be  applied  to  the  Calumet  River. 

{d)  To  make  this  reversal  effective  the  channels  must  be  large  enough  to  take  all 
the  water  which  falls  u])on  the  respective  drainage  areas  during  the  most  violent 
rain  storms.  This  amount  is  estimated  at  10,000  cubic  feet  per  second  for  the  Chicago 
River  and  15,700  cubic  feet  jier  second  for  the  Calumet  River. 

(e)  The  city  of  Chicago  was  originally  built  upon  the  Chicago  River,  and  that  stream 
now  drains  the  richest  and  most  populous  jiart  of  the  city.  It  is  now  spreading  over 
the  Calumet  region. 

(/)  In  1889  the  plan  of  diverting  the  Chicago  River  into  the  valley  of  the  Des  Plaines 
was  definitely  adopted  and  the  Chicago  Drainage  Canal  was  undertaken.  It  was 
designed  to  carry  10,000  cubic  feet  ])er  second.  Though  not  entirely  completed, 
it  has  been  in  use  since  January,  1900.  The  amount  expended  upon  the  canal  and 
accessory  work  is  about  $41,000,000. 

(g)  The  Illinois  law  which  authorized  the  canal  required  a  flow  of  333  cubic  feet 
per  second  for  each  100,000  of  population  in  order  to  render  the  sewage  inoffensive. 
This  amount  of  dilution  is  probably  not  excessive.  It  is  reasonable  to  expect  a  popu¬ 
lation  in  a  future  not  remote  of  five  or  six  millions  or  more,  involving  the  diversion 
by  this  standard  of  some  20,000  cubic  feet  per  second.  The  Chicago  River  with  its 
10,000  cubic  feet  provides  for  a  population  of  3,000,000.  The  present  population  of 
the  city  is  about  2,000,000. 

(h)  It  is  now  proposed  to  apply  to  the  Calumet  River  a  treatment  similar  to  that 
applied  to  the  Chicago  River,  viz,  to  reverse  its  flow,  so  that  instead  of  discharging 
into  Lake  Michigan  it  shall  discharge  into  the  Des  Plaines,  but  for  a  part  of  the  new 
route  it  must  follow  the  drainage  canal  already  excavated  for  the  Chicago  River. 

(i)  Although  the  Chicago  Drainage  Canal  was  designed  to  carry  10,000  cubic  feet 
per  second,  it  is  found  to  have,  in  its  completed  rock  portion,  an  actual  capacity 
of  14,000  cubic  feet.  This  additional  capacity  fixes  the  amount  which  it  is  proposed 
to  divert  from  the  Calumet  at  4,000  cubic  feet  per  second.  Any  greater  amount  from 
the  Calumet  will  overtax  the  drainage  canal  at  the  expense  of  the  richest  part  of  Chi¬ 
cago  and  for  the  benefit  of  a  suburban  part. 

(k)  The  diversion  of  only  4,000  cubic  feet  will  not  be  effective  at  all  times,  since  a 
much  larger  amount  must  be  diverted  from  the  Calumet  during  heavy  rainstorms  if 
the  lake  is  to  be  protected.  Moreover,  it  provides  for  a  population  not  exceeding 
1,200,000,  which  number  will  probably  be  exceeded  at  a  date  not  far  distant. 

(l)  The  large  channels  necessary  to  provide  for  the  contingencies  of  rainstorms  are 
capable  of  discharging  a  volume  of  water  largely  in  excess  of  sanitary  requirements 
during  the  greater  part  of  the  year,  but  the  development  of  water  power  creates  the 
demand  that  they  be  employed  to  their  full  capacity  throughout  the  year. 

(m)  The  diversion  of  large  bodies  of  water  from  Lake  Michigan  for  supplying  the 
drainage  canal  has  not  been  authorized  by  Congress,  but  there  appears  to  be  a  tacit 
general  agreement  that  no  objection  will  be  made  to  the  diversion  of  10,000  cubic  feet 
per  second,  as  originally  planned. 

(n)  The  diversion  of  10,000  cubic  feet  per  second  will  lower  the  levels  of  Lake 
Michigan-Iluron,  Lake  St.  Clair,  Lake  Erie,  Lake  Ontario,  and  the  St.  Lawrence 
River,  besides  the  important  connecting  channels,  the  Detroit  and  St.  Clair  Rivers, 
by  amounts  varying  from  4^  to  6^  inches  for  the  different  waters,  and  the  diversion  of 
14,000  cubic  feet  will  lower  them  from  6  to  8^  inches.  The  diversion  of  20,000  cubic 
feet  will  lower  Lake  Michigan-Iluron  about  13  inches  and  Lake  Erie  about  11  inches. 

(o)  The  lake  traffic  which  passed  through  the  Detroit  River  in  1905  was  about 
58,000,000  tons,  valued  at  about  $615,000,000.  It  is  increasing  annually  with,  mar¬ 
velous  rapidity.  The  records  for  the  year  1906,  so  far  as  they  are  made  up,  indicate 
that  the  number  of  tons  which  passed  through  the  Detroit  River  in  1906  exceeded 
65,000,000,  valued  at  $690,000,000.  The  lowering  of  the  water  surface  has  a  very 
injurious  effect  upon  this  traffic  and  upon  that  of  the  Welland  and  St.  Lawrence  Canals. 
Chicago  being  one  of  the  principal  lake  ports,  there  will  be  very  few  communities 
which  will  feel  the  injury  more  than  she  will. 

(p)  The  cost  of  restoring  the  depth  in  the  harbors  of  the  Great  Lakes  and  the  chan¬ 
nels  between  the  lakes  is  estimated  at  $10,000,000,  and  of  restoring  it  in  the  Welland 
and  St.  Lawrence  Canals  at  $2,500,000.  This  expenditure  would  not  prevent  very 
serious  annoyance  to  the  navigation  interests  during  the  execution  of  the  remedial 
works,  which  would  occupy  several  years.  In  Lake  St.  Clair,  navigation  of  the  open 
lake  would  be  replaced  by  that  of  an  artificial  channel  or  canal  with  submerged  banks. 

(g)  The  extension  to  the  Calumet  region  of  the  method  of  sewage  disposal  already 
applied  to  the  Chicago  River  is  not  necessary  to  preserve  the  health  of  Chicago,  there 
bemg  other  and  better  methods  available  for  the  Calumet  region.  The  final  cost  of 


16  INTEENATIONAL  WATEKWAYS  COMMISSION  PROGRESS  REPORT. 


these  methods  is  somewhat  greater  than  that  of  the  one  proposed,  but  the  works  can 
be  developed  as  the  population  increases,  and  only  a  part  of  their  cost  need  be  incurred 
at  present,  while  their  greater  efficiency  justifies  the  increase  of  final  cost. 

(r)  The  diversion  of  10,000  cubic  feet  of  water  per  second  at  Chicago  will  render 
practicable  a  waterway  to  the  Mississippi  River  14  feet  deep.  Any  greater  depth 
must  be  obtained  by  the  abstraction  of  more  water  from  Lake  Michigan  and  at  the 
expense  of  the  navigation  interests  of  the  Great  Lakes  and  of  the  St.  Lawrence  Valley. 

(s)  The  effect  upon  Niagara  Falls  of  diverting  water  at  Chicago  is  of  secondary 
importance  when  considering  the  health  of  a  great  city  and  the  navigation  interests 
of  the  Great  Lakes  and  of  the  St.  Lawrence  Valley,  but  it  is  proper  to  note  that  the 
volume  of  the  Falls  will  be  diminished  by  the  full  amount  diverted  at  Chicago. 

RECOMMENDATIONS . 

(t)  The  waters  of  Lake  Michigan  in  the  United  States,  the  waters  of  Georgian  Bay 
in  Canada,  and  the  waters  of  Lake  Superior,  partly  in  the  United  States  and  partly  in 
Canada,  all  form  sources  of  supply  of  the  Great  Lakes  system,  finding  their  way  by  the 
St.  Lawrence  to  the  sea.  All  are  interdependent,  and  there  can  be  no  diversion  from 
any  of  them  without  injury  to  the  whole  system.  By  Article  XXVI  of  the  treaty  of 
1871,  it  is  provided  that  ‘‘navigation  of  the  River  St.  Lawrence,  ascending  and  descend¬ 
ing  from  the  forty-fifth  parallel  of  north  latitude,  where  it  ceases  to  form  the  boundary 
between  the  two  countries,  from,  to,  and  into  the  sea,  shall  forever  remain  free  and 
open  for  the  purposes  of  commerce  to  the  citizens  of  the  United  States,  subject  to  any 
laws  and  regulations  of  Great  Britain,  or  of  the  Dominion  of  Canada,  not  inconsistent 
with  such  privileges  of  free  navigation.”  It  is  desirable  that  in  any  treaty  arrange¬ 
ment  the  waters  of  Lake  Michigan,  Georgian  Bay,  and  all  other  waters  forming  part 
of  the  Great  Lakes  system  should  be  declared  to  be  “forever  free  and  open  for  the 
purposes  of  commerce”  to  the  citizens  of  the  United  States  and  the  subjects  of  His 
Britannic  Majesty,  subject  to  any  laws  or  regulations  of  either  country  not  incon¬ 
sistent  with  such  privilege  of  free  navigation. 

(u)  The  preservation  of  the  levels  of  the  Great  Lakes  is  imperative.  The  interest  of 
navigation  in  these  waters  is  paramount,  subject  only  to  the  right  of  use  for  domestic 
purposes,  in  which  term  is  included  necessary  sanitary  purposes.  In  our  report  of 
November  15,  1906,  upon  the  application  of  the  Minnesota  Canal  and  Power  Company 
to  divert  certain  waters  in  Minnesota,  we  recommended  among  other  things: 

“That  any  treaty  which  may  be  entered  into  should  define  the  uses  to  which  inter¬ 
national  waters  may  be  put  by  either  country  without  the  necessity  of  adjustment  in 
each  instance,  and  would  respectfully  suggest  that  such  uses  should  be  declared  to  be — 

“Uses  for  necessary  domestic  and  sanitary  purposes. 

“Service  of  locks  for  navigation  purposes. 

“The  right  to  navigate.” 

It  is  our  opinion  that  so  far  as  international  action  is  concerned  a  treaty  provision 
of  that  kind  is  all  that  is  required  in  this  case.  We  accordingly  renew  our  recommenda¬ 
tion  of  November  15,  1906,  just  quoted. 

(v)  A  careful  consideration  of  all  the  circumstances  leads  us  to  the  conclusion  that 
the  diversion  of  10,000  cubic  feet  per  second  through  the  Chicago  River  will,  with 
proper  treatment  of  the  sewage  from  areas  now  sparsely  occupied  provide  for  all 
the  population  which  will  ever  be  tributary  to  that  river,  and  that  the  amount  named 
will  therefore  suffice  for  the  sanitary  purposes  of  the  city  for  all  time.  Incidentally, 
it  will  provide  for  the  largest  navigable  waterway  from  I.ake  Michigan  to  the  Mississippi 
River  which  has  been  considered  by  Congress. 

We  therefore  recommend  that  the  Government  cf  the  United  States  prohibit  the 
diversion  of  more  than  10,000  cubic  feet  per  second  for  the  Chicago  Drainage  Canal. 

Two  editions  of  this  report  were  printed  as  a  War  Department 
document,  and  were  distributed  to  all  persons  applying  for  them. 
A  copy  is  hereto  appended.  (Appendix  I.) 

INTERNATIONAL  BOUNDARY  IN  LAKE  ERIE. 

22.  In  tjie  month  of  August,  1906,  a  large  number  of  nets  were 
placed  in  Lake  Erie  by  the  Keystone  Fish  Co.,  of  Erie,  Pea.,  near 
the  middle  of  the  lake,  but  on  what  they  claimed  was  the  Ameri- 
can  side  of  the  boundary.  Most  of  these  nets  were  promptly  seized 
and  confiscated  by  the  Canadian  yessel  Vigilant.  The  commander 


INTERNATIONAL  WATERWAYS  COMMISSION  PROGRESS  REPORT.  17 


■ 


:  of  the  Vigilant  thou  })ro|)oso(l  to  the  Aiuoricau  hshemioii  to  show 
P  tlieni  tlio  l)ouii(lary,  and  aid  them  in  marking  it  with  buoys  so  that 
Ij  they  might  always  remain  on  their  own  side  of  the  line  if  they  de- 
^  sired  to  do  so.  The  proposal  was  forwarded  to  the  Secretary  of 
State  and  by  liim  to  the  Secretary  of  War,  under  date  of  September 
5,  19()G,  with  the  re([uest  that  it — 

be  referred  to  the  International  Waterways  Commission  with  the  inquiry  whether  it 
"  is  known  that  the  American  and  Canadian  cluirts  of  the  locality  agree  as  to  the  dis¬ 
tance  to  be  logged  from  the  gas  buoy  at  Erie  to  the  boundary  line  on  the  usual  fishing 
grounds. 

23.  The  commission  having  collected  the  various  official  charts 
ui)on  which  the  boundary  in  Lake  Erie  is  marked,  proceeded  to 
reduce  them  to  the  same  system  of  ])rojection  and  the  same  scale  in 
1  order  to  comjiare  them.  It  was  found  that  the  boundary  as  laid 
down  on  the  United  States  hydrographic  chart  differed  widely  from 
<  that  on  the  British  Admiralty  chart.  They  both  derived  their 
authoritv  from  the  treaty"  of  Ghent.  The  map  on  file  with  the 
,  treaty  was  also  reduced  to  the  same  sy^stem  of  })rojection  and  the 
same  scale  as  the  others,  and  having  been  compared  with  the  accu- 
j  rate  modern  charts  of  the  United  States  Lake  Survey,  was  found  to 
'  be  very"  far  from  correct.  It  was  so  inaccurate  that  no  two  persons 
‘i  would  probably  transfer  the  boundary  line  marked  thereon  to  a 

■  modern  chart  in  the  same  way,  and  was  therefore  worthless  for  its 
purpose.  The  only  guide  for  the  location  of  the  boundary  line  in 

■  Jjakc  Erie,  except  at  the  eastern  and  western  extremities,  is  in  the 
j  expression  in  the  text  of  the  treaty",  “through  the  middle  of  said  lake.^’ 

I  Under  that  description  a  variety  of  lines  may  be  laid  down. 

!  24.  Under  date  of  Januaiy  4,  1907,  the  commission  submitted  to 

'  the  two  Governments  a  report  which  closed  with  the  following  con¬ 
clusions  and  recommendations,  viz. 

The  commission  therefore  concludes: 

t  (a)  Tliat  the  international  boundary  line  on  Lake  Erie  can  not  be  ascertained  with 
•  any  accuracy  from  existing  data. 

(b)  That  the  American  and  Canadian  charts  of  Lake  Erie,  namely,  the  hydro- 
graphic  and  British  Admiralty  charts,  do  not  agree  as  to  the  distance  to  be  loggeddrom 
the  gas  buoy  at  Erie  to  the  boundary  line  on  the  usual  fishing  grounds. 

,  The  commission  would  respectfully  recommend : 

(a)  That  the  enthe  boundary  line  from  the  point  where  the  forty-fifth  jiarallel  of 
north  latitude  meets  the  middle  of  the  St.  Lawrence  River,  through  that  river,'  the 
Great  Lakes  and  connecting  waters,  in  accordance  with  the  true  intent  and  meaning 
I  of  the  treaties  of  1783,  1814,  and  1842,  be  located  to  accord  as  nearly  as  possible  with 
the  lines  fixed  by  the  commissioners  appointed  under  the  treaty  of  Ghent  and  the 
treaty  of  1842,  to  be  delineated  upon  modern  charts,  and  be  so  described  by  refer¬ 
ence  and  fixed  monuments,  where  necessary,  that  it  can  in  the  future  be  relocated 
at  any  given  point  by  survey. 

1  (b)  That  the  location,  delineation  on  modern  charts,  and  monurnenting  of  the 

'  boundary  line  ])roceed  under  the  direction  of  this  commission  or  another  international 
commission  to  be  appointed,  and  that  when  it  is  located,  laid  down  on  modern  charts 
'  and  monurnented,  it  be  finally  fixed  and  determined  by  treaty  accordingly. 

‘  (c)  That  this  commission  be  authorized  to  locate,  lay  down  upon  a  modern  chart, 

and  monument  the  boundary  line  through  Lake  Erie. 

A  copy  of  the  rejiort  is  hereto  appended.  (Appendix  K.)  The 
furtlier  connection  of  this  commission  with  the  boundarv  has  been  of 
an  executive  cJiaracter  under  a  special  provision  of  the  treaty  be- 
,  tween  the  United  States  and  Great  Britain  dated  April  11,  1908. 
It  will  be  described  farther  on. 

S.  Doc.  959-62-3 - 2 


I 


18  INTERNATIONAL  WATERWAYS  COMMISSION  PROGRESS  REPORT. 


BUFFALO  INLET  PIER. 

25.  At  its  session  in  Buffalo  on  the  26th  of  June,  1906,  representa¬ 
tives  of  the  city  appeared  before  the  commission  and  requested  its 
approval  of  the  location  of  a  new  inlet  pier  for  the  city  waterworks, 
which  it  was  desired  to  place  in  the  international  waters  on  the 
Canadian  side  of  the  boundary.  Although  the  question  had  not 
been  regularly  brought  before  it  by  higher  authority,  the  commis¬ 
sion  thought  it  proper,  with  a  view  to  avoiding  delay,  to  pass  the 
following  resolution,  viz: 

That  in  the  opinion  of  the  International  Waterways  Commission,  the  tunnel  and 
inlet  pier  proposed  to  be  constructed  in  Lake  Erie  by  the  city  of  Buffalo  for  the  pur¬ 
pose  of  furnishing  a  pure- water  supply  to  the  city,  can  be  built  without  injury  to 
navigation  or  other  public  interests,  and  it  is  recommended  that  permits  for  the  con¬ 
struction  of  these  works  be  granted,  with  the  proviso  that  the  inlet  pier  be  kept  prop¬ 
erly  lighted  at  night  at  the  expense  of  the  city. 

DETROIT  RIVER. 

26.  The  })lans  of  the  Detroit  River  Tunnel  Co.  for  the  construction 
of  a  tunnel  under  the  Detroit  River  having  been  referred  to  the  com¬ 
mission,  it  passed,  at  its  session  of  March  7,  1906,  at  Toronto,  the 
following  resolution,  viz: 

That  the  International  Waterways  Commission  approve  of  the  plans  of  the  con¬ 
struction  of  a  tunnel  under  the  Detroit  River  prepared  by  the  Detroit  River  Tunnel 
Co.  and  submitted  to  the  commission  by  the  Chief  of  Engineers  of  the  United  States 
Army  under  date  of  February  13,  1906,  and  by  the  minister  of  marine  and  fisheries 
for  Canada  under  date  of  November  16,  1905,  the  construction  to  be  carried  on  on  the 
American  side  under  the  regulations  contained  in  the  report  of  the  Board  of  Engineers 
of  the  United  States  Army  of  date  .lanuary  26,  1906,  and  that  the  same  be  carried  on 
on  the  Canadian  side  under  regulations  to  be  fixed  by  the  minister  of  public  works 
and  the  minister  of  marine  and  fisheries. 

27.  On  the  2d  of  June,  1909,  a  letter  was  addressed  to  Lieut.  Col. 
C.  McD.  Townsend,  Corps  of  Engineers,  United  States  Army,  the 
ofhcer  in  charge  of  the  channel  improvements  in  the  Detroit  River, 
by  Mr.  H.  J.  liamb,  engineer  in  charge,  department  of  public  works, 
Canada,  inquiring  by  what  authority  the  United  States  was  deposit¬ 
ing  material  in  Canadian  waters  in  the  construction  of  tlie  Living¬ 
stone  Channel,  Detroit  River.  This  letter  was  forwarded  by  Lieut. 
Col.  Townsend,  with  his  letter  of  June  3,  to  the  Cliief  of  Engineers,  and 
by  request  of  the  latter  was  referred  to  the  International  Waterways 
Commission  by  the  Acting  Secretary  of  War,  by  indorsement  dated 
June  16,  1909.  At  its  meeting  in  tluffalo,  fluL  14,  1909,  the  com¬ 
mission  adopted  the  following  resolution,  viz: 

Whereas  the  enlargement  of  the  navigable  channel  in  the  Detroit  River,  now  being 
made  by  the  United  States  Government  west  of  Bois  Blanc  Island,  is  of  great 
benefit  to  the  navigation  interests  of  Canada  as  well  as  of  the  United  States;  and 
Whereas  the  excavation  for  said  channel  and  the  dumping  grounds  are  partly  in 
Canadian  waters;  and 

Whereas  the  consent  of  the  Canadian  Government  to  such  use  of  its  waters  has  not 
been  given ; 

Resolved,  That  in  the  opinion  of  the  commission  application  should  be  made  with¬ 
out  delay  to  the  Canadian  Government  by  the  United  States  Government  for  formal 
permission  to  excavate  the  channel  where  that  work  is  now  progressing,  and  that  such 
application,  when  received  by  the  Canadian  Government,  should  be  granted,  pro¬ 
vision  being  made  that  the  dumping  grounds  in  Canadian  waters  should  be  located 
under  the  direction  of  the  minister  of  public  works  of  Canada. 


INTERNATIONAL  WATERWAYS  COMMISSION  PROGRESS  REPORT.  19 


Tlic  matter  was  then  brought  to  the  attention  of  the  I)e])artment 
of  State  and  by  that  de])artment  to  the  attention  of  his  excellency 
the  British  ambassador  at  Washington.  The  desired  ])ermission 
was  granted  ])y  the  Canadian  Covernment  upon  the  condition  named 
in  the  resolution  that  ‘‘the  dumping  grounds  in  Canadian  waters  be 
located  under  the  direction  of  the  minister  of  public  woi-ks  of  Canada/’ 
and  with  the  proviso  “that  such  permission  is  given  without  ])rejudice 
to  the  possessory  rights  of  Chinada  as  defined  by  the  ma])S  and  decla¬ 
rations  of  the  commissioners  under  the  treaty  of  Ghent,  made  at 
Utica  on  the  19th  of  June,  1822,  and  provided  also  that  the  dumping 
of  material  should  not  ])rove  in  any  way  a  detriment  to  the  safe  navi¬ 
gation  of  the  Detroit  Kiver.”  Notice  of  this  action  was  sent  to  the 
I)e])artment  of  State  by  the  British  ambassador  in  his  letter  of 


September  17,  1909. 


ST.  LAW  PENCE  RIVER. 


28.  Under  date  of  JMay  28,  1906,  !Mr.  Smith  L.  Dawley,  of  Ogdens- 
burg,  N.  Y.,  addressed  a  letter  to  the  Secretary  of  War,  applying  for 
permission  to  construct  dikes,  retaining  walls,  and  such  other  struc¬ 
tures  in  the  St.  Lawu'ence  River  near  Ijong  Sault  Island  as  should 
be  necessary  to  create  an  “attractive  summer  resort  with  navigable 
ap])roaches  thereto,  and  the  development  of  a  water  powder.”  By 
indorsement  dated  June  2,  1906,  the  pa])er  was  referred  to  the  com¬ 
mission.  On  the  4th  of  January,  1907,  the  commission  adopted  the 
following  resolution,  of  wdiich  a  copy  was  forw-arded  to  each  Gov¬ 
ernment,  viz ; 

Whereas  Mr.  Smith  L.  Dawley,  of  Ogdensbuig,  N.  Y.,  submitted  to  the  honorable 
Secretary  of  War  of  the  United  States,  under  date  of  May  28,  1906,  an  application 
for  permission  to  construct  at  Long  Sault  Island,  in  the  town  of  Massena,  St.  Law¬ 
rence  County,  N.  Y.,  dikes,  retaining  walls,  and  such  other  structures  as  might  bo 
necessary  to  create  “an  attractive  summer  resort  with  navigable  approaches  thereto, 
and  the  development  of  a  water  power,  entirely  in  that  portion  of  the  St.  Lawrence 
River  that  is  within  the  United  States,  ”  which  application  was  referred  to  the 
International  Waterways  Commission  by  indorsement  of  the  Secretary  of  War, 
dated  June  2,  1906;  and 

Whereas  the  application  did  not  furnish  information  sufficient  to  justify  a  recom¬ 
mendation  in  the  matter,  and  the  efforts  of  the  commission  to  obtain  such  informa¬ 
tion  from  Mr.  Dawley  have  thus  far  been  without  success;  and 
Whereas  the  commission  now  learns  that  Mr.  Dawley  has  transferred  his  rights  at 
Long  Sault  Island  to  the  Pittsburgh  Reduction  Co.,  and  it  is  the  opinion  of  the 
commission  that  if  any  permit  for  the  construction  of  works  at  this  place  is  to  bo 
granted  it  should  be  dealt  with  upon  a  direct  application  from  the  beneficiary; 
therefore  be  it 

Resolved,  That  the  International  Waterways  Commission  recommend  to  the  honor¬ 
able  Secretary  of  War  of  the  United  States  that  the  application  of  Mr.  Smith  L.  Dawley 
be  denied. 

29.  Under  date  of  April  4,  1906,  the  minister  of  public  works  of 
Canada  referred  to  the  commission  a  letter  addressed  to  him  bv  the 
Calvin  Co.  (Ltd.),  a  Canadian  corporation,  protesting  against  the 
closure  hy  a  dam  of  tlie  south  channel  at  Long  Sault  Island, 
which  it  understood  was  contemplated  hy  the  Massena  Water  Power 
Co.,  an  American  corporation.  It  was  found  that  the  latter  com¬ 
pany  had  taken  no  ste])s  to  ])rocure  the  necessary  authority  from  the 
United  States  Government. 

30.  On  the  ISth  of  December,  1908,  the  Canadian  department  of 
public  works  referred  to  the  commission  an  application  of  tlie  Cedar 
Rapids  Manufacturing  &  Power  Co.  to  the  Canadian  Government  for 


20  INTEENATIONAL  WATERWAYS  COMAIISSIOIvT  PROGRESS  REPORT. 

permission  to  build  works  in  the  St.  Lawrence  River  at  Cedars,  in  the 
county  of  Soulanges,  for  the  purpose  of  developiug  electric  power. 
At  this  place  both  banks  of  tlie  St.  Lawrence  River  are  Canadian 
territory,  but  power  worlvs  in  the  bed  of  the  stream  affect  the  navi¬ 
gation  interests  of  the  entire  river.  On  the  13th  of  April,  1909,  the 
commission  submitted  a  report  upon  the  subject  to  the  minister  of 
public  works  of  Canada,  of  which  copies  were  sent  to  the  Secretary 
of  State  and  Secretary  of  War  of  the  United  States.  A  copy  of  this 
report  is  Iioreto  appended.  (Appendix  I^.) 

31.  By  letter  dated  December  24,  1909,  the  Committee  on  Rivers 
and  Harbors  of  the  House  of  Representatives  of  the  United  States 
transmitted  to  the  commission  a  copy  of  a  bill  to  provide  for  the 
construction  of  certain  dams,  locks,  canals,  and  other  structures  in 
the  St.  I^awrence  River  near  Long  Sault  Island,  for  the  development 
of  power,  and  requested  the  opinion  of  the  commission  thereon. 
The  subject  of  legislation  to  authorize  power  development  at  this 
place  was  not  a  new  one.  A  bill  of  similar  tenor  had  been  referred 
by  the  Secretary  of  War  to  the  commission  in  1907,  and  was  the  sub¬ 
ject  of  public  hearings  April  IS  and  again  October  24  of  that  year,  but 
action  was  deferred  under  instructions  from  the  prime  minister  of 
Canada  to  the  Canadian  section,  to  the  effect  that  the  minister  of 
railways  and  canals  had  the  matter  under  investigation,  and  that  it 
would  be  inadvisable  for  the  commission  to  deal  with  the  matter 
until  the  investigation  was  completed.  The  subject  received  con¬ 
sideration  from  time  to  time  in  1908  and  1909,  public  hearings  being 
held  in  Toronto,  November  21,  1908,  and  in  Buffalo,  February  26, 
1909,  but  the  Canadian  members  were  not  ready  to  join  in  a  report, 
and  on  our  side  it  was  understood  that  the  plans  for  the  proposed 
works  were  not  entirely  perfected  and  that  legislation  would  not 
probably  be  enacted  within  the  near  future.  The  letter  of  December 
24,  1909,  above  mentioned,  from  the  Committee  on  Rivers  and 
Harbors  reviving  the  subject  was  considered  by  the  commission  at  its 
meeting  in  Buffalo,  January  8,  1910.  The  Canadian  members  desired 
time  for  further  consideration  and  particularly  time  enough  to  hold 
another  public  hearing  in  Canada.  They  stated  that  the  objection 
of  the  prime  minister  of  Canada  to  consideration  of  the  subject  had 
been  withdrawn.  The  desired  public  hearing  was  held  at  Toronto  on 
the  8th  and  9th  of  February,  1910,  but  again  the  Canadian  members 
desired  time  for  further  consideration,  and  action  was  deferred  until 
the  next  meeting.  At  a  meeting  held  in  Buffalo,  March  11,  1910,  the 
subject  was  again  considered,  but  the  Canadian  members  were  still 
not  prepared  to  join  in  a  report.  By  this  time  the  session  of  Congress 
was  so  far  advanced  that  no  further  delay  was  permissible  if  the  report 
was  to  be  of  any  service  to  the  Committee  on  Rivers  and  Harbors. 
The  American  members  felt  compelled  to  ex]>ress  their  own  views, 
and  did  so  in  a  letter  dated  March  11,  1910.  (Appendix  M.)  Subse¬ 
quently  there  was  another  public  hearing  at  Toronto,  April  15,  1910, 
but  the  commission  took  no  action. 

DAM  AT  THE  OUTLET  OF  LAKE  ERIE. 

32.  The  organic  act  creating  the  commission  prescribed  as  one  of 
its  duties  that  it  should  ^L'eport  upon  the  advisability  of  locating  a 
dam  at  the  outlet  of  Lake  Erie  with  a  view  to  determining  whether 
such  dam  will  benefit  navigation.’^  It  so  happens  that  the  term 


INTERNATIONAL  WATERWAYS  COMMISSION  EROCiRESS  REPORT.  21 


*  ‘  dam”  may  a])ply  to  various  works  oi  wliicli  the  cliaractc'r  and  object 
are  very  diHerent.  At  the  time  of  ])assing  tlie  act  Congress  had 
before  it  the  report  of  the  board  ot  engineers  iij)on  dee})  waterways 
between  the  Great  J^akes  and  Atlantic  tidewaters,  dated  June  30, 
1900,  in  which  it  was  recommended  that  tlie  level  of  Jjake  Erie  be 
■‘‘regrdated ” — that  is,  that  its  oscillations  b?  reduced — by  means  of 
a  submerged  weir  in  connection  with  a  set  of  sluice  gates  })laced  at 
its  outlet  near  the  head  of  Niagara  Kiver.  It  seemed  })robable  that 
this  was  tlie  kind  of  works  which  Congress  had  in  mind  when  using 
the  term  ”dam.’'  Their  object  would  be  to  raise  the  low-water 
surface  of  the  lake  without  raising  the  high-water  surfav^e.  But  the 
term  ‘Clam”  may  also  be  ap}')lied  to  a  submerged  weir  without  sluice 
gates,  the  object  of  which  would  be  sim})ly  to  raise  the  level  of  the  lake 
without  reducing  its  oscillations.  The  low-water  surface  would  be 
raised,  but  so  would  the  high-water  to  nearly  an  equal  amount.  To 
distinguish  works  of  this  kind  from  those  designed  to  ‘"regulate’’  the 
lake,  they  may  be  called  “compensating  works.” 

33.  The  Great  Lakes,  with  their  connecting  channels,  constitute 
the  most  important  system  ot  inland  navigation  in  the  world.  The 
traflic  which  passed  through  Detroit  River,  its  busiest  link,  in  1907, 
amounted  to  71,220,895  tons,  valued  at  about  $700,000,000  (the 
traffic  of  the  most  important  river  in  Euro})e,  the  Rhine,  was,  in 
1905,  about  4,000,000  tons).  About  80  per  cent  of  this  traffic  is 
carried  in  large  freight  carriers  which  are  loaded  down  to  the  greatest 
draft  that  can  be  carried  into  the  harbors  or  through  the  channels 
between  the  lakes,  but  could  be  loaded  much  deeper  if  the  depth 
of  water  permitted.  Some  of  the  larger  of  these  vessels  carry  an 
additional  load  of  85  tons  for  each  inch  of  additional  draft.  Every 
inch  added  to  the  available  depth  of  water  would  therefore  be  of 
material  benefit  to  commerce. 

34.  The  Great  Lakes  constitute  a  series  of  enonnous  natural 
reservoirs,  each  of  which  serves  to  regulate  the  flow  in  the  river 
constituting  its  outlet  and  to  maintain  the  lakv^^  below.  They  are 
interdependent.  The  study  of  one,  to  be  com])lete,  must  include 
the  study  of  all.  The  total  area  drained  by  them  is  about  287,688 
square  miles,  an  area  considerably  larger  than  the  German  Em])ire. 
Of  this  total  about  one-third  is  occupied  by  the  lakes  themselves — 
that  is,  devoted  to  reservoir  })ur})oses.  The  result  is  a  uniformity 
of  level  and  a  liniformity  of  flow  wliich  are  truly  wonderful — a  ])er- 
fection  of  regulation  wliicli  no  work  of  man  eYer  did  or  ever  will 
a})})roach.  dlie  ({uestion  ])ropounded  was.  Could  he  add  to  any 
im])ortant  extent  to  the  degree  of  regidation  which  nature  ])rovided? 
Enormous  forces  were  to  be  dealt  with,  and  the  residts  were  to  be 
measured  in  indies.  Tlie  subject  was  therefore  as  difficult  as  it 
was  im|)ortant. 

35.  Soon  after  the  organization  of  the  commission,  a  committee 
of  two  of  its  engineer  members  was  apiiointed  to  collect  all  of  the 
available  data  and  to  make  an  hydraulic  analysis  of  the  general  regu¬ 
lation  of  all  the  lakes.  It  was  well  known  at  the  outset  that  this 
would  be  a  long  and  laborious  task,  but  it  jiroved  to  bo  more  so  than 
was  expected,  and  the  death  of  a  member  of  the  committee,  Mr. 
Wisner,  in  1906,  was  the  cause  of  considerable  delay.  All  existing 
records  of  water-level  observations  and  discharge  measurements 
made  since  1860  were  collected,  analyzed,  tabulated,  and  studied. 
Bv  the  end  of  1909  the  commission  was  able  fioni  these  studies  to 


22  INTERNATIONAL  WATERWAYS  COMMISSION  PROGRESS  REPORT. 

form  an  opinion  as  to  the  first  kind  of  works  covered  by  the  term 
‘^dain”;  that  is,  regnlating  works.  The  conclusions  then  reached 
were  that  only  a  very  moderate  degree  of  improvement  in  regulation 
over  what  nature  provides  is  practicable  in  aii}^  of  the  lakes,  and 
that  such  as  it  is,  this  improvement  is  obtained  at  the  expense  and 
to  the  injury  of  the  navigable  channels  below.  In  the  case  of  Lake 
Erie,  it  would  be  possible  to  raise  the  extreme  low-water  stages  about 
1  foot,  and  this  in  turn* would  raise  the  low-water  stages  of  Lake 
St.  Clair  about  0.61  foot,  and  of  Lake  Huron-Michigan  about  0.27 
foot,  all  without  appreciable  increase  in  the  extreme  liigh  stage.  But 
in  doing  this  the  low-water  stage  of  Lake  Ontario  would  be  lowered 
about  4^  inches,  the  available  depth  in  the  St.  Lawrence  canals  would 
be  diminished  about  7f  inches,  and  the  city  of  Buffalo  would  suffer 
by  increased  damage  from  floods  and  from  a  postponement  of  the 
date  of  opening  navigation  in  the  spring.  The  question  of  damage 
to  vested  rights  was  thus  introducecf  in  a  ])articularly  intricate  form. 

While  the  advantages  cf  regulation  might  outweigh  the  disad¬ 
vantages  if  the  persons  who  were  to  benefit  from  the  former  were 
identical  with  those  who  were  to  suffer  from  the  latter,  the  difference 
was  not  great  enough  to  justify  the  two  Governments  in  entering 
upon  tlie  vexatious  question  of  damages.  The  commission  therefore 
decided  to  recommend  that  the  regulation’^  of  Lake  Erie  be  not 
undertaken  and  to  proceed  to  the  consideration  of  the  other  kind 
of  works  covered  by  the  term  ‘Liam,”  or  compensating  works.  As 
this  would  require  surveys  and  investigations  which  would  cover 
manv  months,  it  decided  also  to  submit  to  the  two  Governments 
without  further  delay  the  data  which  it  had  collected  and  the  con¬ 
clusions  wliicli  it  had  reached  concerning  one  branch  of  the  subject 
committed  to  it.  This  it  did  in  its  report  dated  January  8,  1910. 
The  report  was  forwarded  to  Congress  b}^  the  President  and  was  pub¬ 
lished  as  House  Document  No.  779,  Sixty-first  Congress,  second  ses¬ 
sion.  An  edition  was  printed  also  for  the  use  of  the  commission,  at 
the  joint  expense  of  the  Canadian  and  American  sections.  The 
report  is  accompanied  by  42  tables,  many  of  them  of  elaborate  char¬ 
acter,  and  b}^  29  plates.  An  examination  of  it  will  give  an  idea, 
though  a  faint  one,  of  the  amount  of  time  and  labor  expended  upon  it. 

36.  There  remained  to  be  considered  the  other  kind  of  works 
covered  by  the  term  ‘Liam,”  or  compensating  works.  The  Niagara 
Biver  at  its  extreme  upper  end  is  an  important  safety  valve  for  the 
protection  of  Buffalo  from  the  effect  of  storms  upon  Lake  Erie,  and 
should  not  bo  obstructed  by  a  dam,  but  it  was  believed  that  some¬ 
where  in  the  river  between  Lake  Erie  and  the  Falls  a  submerged  dam 
might  be  placed  which  would  greatly  benefit  the  navigation  of  the 
waters  above  without  injury  to  those  below,  and  vdth  only  minor 
damages,  if  any,  to  the  adjoining  lands.  Without  any  attempt  to 
^‘regulate”  Lake  Erie,  the  general  level  of  the  lake  might  be  raised 
sufficiently  to  compensate  tor  the  damages  heretofore  inflicted  by  the 
Chicago  Drainage  Canal  and  other  deteiiorating  influences.  To 
determine  the  best  site  for  such  a  dam  it  has  been  necessary  to  make 
additional  surveys.  To  determine  the  best  form  for  this  dam,  which 
must  be  of  the  submerged  type,  a  large  number  of  expeiiments  uj)on 
several  different  forms  was  necessary.  These  experiments  were 
made  at  the  hydraulic  canal  of  the  college  of  civil  engineering  of 
Cornell  University,  the  use  of  which  was  given  free  of  expense.  The 


INTERNATIONAL  WATERWAYS  COMMISSION  PROGRESS  REPORT.  23 


results  of  these  ex])eriiiients  were  very  satisfactory  and  they  will  be 
given  in  the  re])ort  soon  to  he  submitted.  It  was  hoped  that  this 
work  would  he  completed  and  a  final  re])ort  rendered  before  this  time, 
hut  the  illness  of  a  member  of  the  committee,  Mr.  Coste,  and  his 
absence  in  Europe,  has  caused  an  unexj)ected  dela}". 

INTERNATIONAL  BOUNDARY. 


37.  On  the  11th  of  April,  ]90(S,  a  treaty  was  signed  between  the 
United  States  and  Groat  Britain  providing  for  the  more  com})lete  defi¬ 
nition  and  demarcation  of  the  international  boundary  between  the 
United  States  and  the  Dominion  of  Ganada.  It  covered  the  entire 
houndary  from  the  Atlantic  to  the  Pacific  Oceans,  hut  it  pi  escribed 
different  agencies  for  doing  the  work  in  different  parts  of  the  line. 
Each  Government  was  to  “Gijipoint  without  delay  an  expert  geog¬ 
rapher  or  surveyor  to  serve  as  commissioner”  for  the  ])urpose  of 
doing  the  work  in  the  various  portions  of  the  line  except  the  portion 
described  in  Article  IV.  That  article  reads  as  follows: 


The  high  contracting  parties  agree  that  the  existing  International  Waterways  Com¬ 
mission,  constituted  by  concurrent  action  of  the  United  States  and  the  Domini<^n  of 
Canada,  and  composed  of  three  commissioners  on  the  part  of  the  United  States  and 
three  commissioners  on  the  part  of  the  Dominion  of  Canada,  is  hereby  authorized  and 
empowered  to  ascertain  and  reestablish  accurately  the  location  of  the  international 
boundary  line  beginning  at  the  point  of  its  inters'^ction  with  the  St.  Lawrence  River 
near  the  forty-fifth  parallel  of  north  latitude,  as  determined  under  Articles  1  and  VI 
of  the  treaty  of  August  9,  1842,  between  the  United  States  and  Great  Britain,  and 
thence  through  the  Great  Lakes  and  communicating  waterways  to  the  mouth  of 
Pigeon  River,  at  the  western  shore  of  Lake  Superior,  in  accordance  with  the  descrip¬ 
tion  of  such  line  in  Article  II  of  the  treaty  of  peace  between  the  United  States  and 
Great  Britain,  dated  September  3,  1783,  and  of  a  portion  of  such  line  in  Article  II 
of  the  treaty  of  August  9,  1842,  aforesaid,  and  as  described  in  the  joint  report  dated 
June  18,  1822,  of  the  commissioners  appointed  under  Article  VI  of  the  treaty  of  Decem¬ 
ber  24,  1814,  between  the  United  States  and  Great  Britain,  with  respect  to  a  portion 
of  said  line  and  as  marked  on  charts  prepared  by  them  and  filed  with  said  report,  and 
with  respect  to  the  remaning  portion  of  said  line  as  marked  on  charts  adopted  as  treaty 
charts  of  the  boundary  under  provisions  of  Article  II  of  the  treaty  of  1842,  above  men- 
tioii'^d,  with  such  deviation  from  said  line,  however,  as  may  be  required  on  account  of 
the  cession  by  Great  Britain  to  the  United  States  of  the  portion  of  Horse  Shoe  Reef  in 
the  Niagara  River  necessary  for  the  lighthouse  erected  there  by  the  United  States  in 
accordance  with  the  terms  of  the  protocol  of  a  conference  held  at  the  British  foreign  ollice 
December  9, 185.0,  between  the  representatives  of  the  two  Governments  and  signed  by 
them  agreeing  upon  such  cession ;  and  it  is  agreed  that  wherever  the  boundary  is  shown 
on  said  charts  by  a  curved  line  along  the  water  the  commissioners  are  authorized  in  their 
discretion  to  adopt,  in  place  of  such  curved  line,  a  series  of  connecting  straight  lines, 
defined  by  distances  and  courses,  and  following  generally  the  course  of  such  curved 
line,  but  conforming  strictly  to  the  description  of  the  boundary  in  the  existing  treaty 
provisions,  and  the  geographical  coordinates  of  the  turning  points  of  such  line  shall 
be  stated  by  said  commissioners  so  as  to  conform  to  the  system  of  latitudes  and  longi¬ 
tudes  of  the  charts  mentioned  below,  and  the  said  commissioners  shall,  so  far  as  prac¬ 
ticable,  mark  the  course  of  the  entire  boundary  line  located  and  elefined  as  aforesaid, 
by  buoy^  ‘D^d  monuments  in  the  waterways  and  by  permanent  range  marks  estab- 
lishe^d  on  the  adjacent  shores  or  islands,  anel  by  such  other  boundary  marks  and  at 
such  points  as  in  the  judgment  of  the  commissioners  it  is  desirable  that  the  boundary 
should  be  so  marked,  and  the  line  of  the  boundary  defined  and  located  as  aforesaid 
shall  be  laid  down  by  said  commissioners  on  accurate  modern  charts  prepared  or 
adopted  by  them  for  that  purpose,  in  quadruplicate  sets,  certified  and  signed  by  the 
commissioners,  two  duplicate  originals  of  which  shall  be  filed  by  them  with  each 
Government;  and  the  commissioners  shall  also  prepare  in  du]>licate  and  file  with 
each  Government  a  joint  re})ort  or  re})orts  describing  in  detail  the  course  of  said  line 
and  the  range  marks  and  buoys  marking  it,  and  the  character  and  location  of  each 
boundary'  mark.  The  majority  of  the  commissioners  shall  have  power  to  render  a 
decision. 


24  INTERNATIONAL  WATERWAYS  COMMISSION  PROGRESS  REPORT. 

The  line  so  defined  and  laid  down  shall  be  taken  and  deemed  to  be  the  interna¬ 
tional  boundary  as  defined  and  established  by  treaty  provisions  and  proceedings 
thereunder  as  aforesaid  from  its  intersection  with  the  St.  Lawrence  River  to  the 
mouth  of  Pigeon  River. 

By  tliis  article  the  “existing  International  Waterways  Commis¬ 
sion”  was  required  to  ascertain  and  reestablish,  to  mark  upon  the 
ground,  and  to  delineate  upon  accurate  modern  charts,  the  location 
of  that  portion  of  the  boundary  which  passes  through  the  Great  Lakes 
system,  l)eginning  at  its  point  of  intersection  with  the  St.  Lawrence 
liiver  near  the  forty-fifth  parallel  of  latitude  and  extending  through 
the  St.  Lawrence  River  and  the  Great  Lakes  and  communicating 
waterways  to  the  mouth  of  Pigeon  River  at  the  western  shore  of  Lake 
Superior.  As  the  “existing  International  Waterways  Commission” 
is,  and  by  law  must  be,  composed  mainly  of  engineers,  there  was  in 
this  provision  no  violation  of  the  rule  that  the  work  must  be  done  by 
experts. 

38.  By  letter  dated  May  21,  1908,  the  Secretary  of  State  made 
known  to  the  American  section  the  provisions  of  Article  IV  of  the 
treaty,  and  directed  them  to  act  under  and  report  to  the  Department 
of  State  in  the  performance  of  their  duties  under  that  article.  The 
subject  was  considered  by  the  commission  at  meetings  held  in  Buffalo 
June  2  and  in  Toronto  June  23,  1908,  and  at  the  latter  meeting  a 
preliminary  report,  submitting  a  project  for  the  work  with  an  approxi¬ 
mate  estimate  of  cost,  was  prepared  and  forwarded  to  the  Secretary 
of  State  of  the  United  States  and  the  minister  of  public  works  of  Can-' 
ada.  (Appendix  N.) 

39.  In  this  project  the  estimate  of  cost  was  spoken  of  as  a  “rough 
estimate”  and  no  estimate  of  the  time  required  was  given.  The  esti¬ 
mate  of  cost  was  for  special  work  under  the  treaty  and  did  not  include 
the  funds  needed  for  the  support  of  the  commission  itself,  which  were 
provided  by  appropriations  for  another  department  of  the  Govern¬ 
ment,  the  War  Department.  Its  amount  was  $160,000,  which  being 
equally  divided  made  a  charge  of  $80,000  to  each  country.  As  the 
work  approaches  completion  it  is  found  that  this  estimate  was 
remarkably  near  the  true  cost,  but  owing  to  a  necessary  increase  of 
the  salaries  paid  to  employees  it  must  be  increased  $10,000,  or  $5,000 
for  each  country. 

40.  The  most  important  recommendation  contained  in  the  project 
was  that  a  new  set  of  charts  be  constructed  specially  for  the  purpose 
of  delineating  the  boundary.  The  charts  of  the  United  States  Lake 
Survey  are  the  most  accurate  modern  charts  existing  of  the  region 
under  consideration  and  they  represent  the  highest  type  of  surveying 
skill,  but  it  was  found  that  thev  were  unsuitable  for  the  delineation  of 
the  boundary  for  the  following  reasons,  viz,  the  scales  of  these  charts 
which  vary  considerably  are  not  the  most  convenient  for  this  purpose, 
being  in  some  cases  so  small  that  the  boundary  could  not  be  shown 
clearly.  The  size  of  the  sheets  is  not  uniform,  making  it  impossible 
to  prepare  a  neat  portfolio  with  easy  reference,  such  as  is  required  for 
a  record  of  such  importance  as  that  of  the  boundary.  They  contain 
an  immense  amount  of  detail  whicli  is  of  no  use  in  connection  with  the 
boundary  and  would  serve  only  to  obscure  it.  The  geographical 
coordinates  used  in  constructing  the  charts  were  ascertained  with  the 
greatest  precision  attainable  at  the  time,  ])ut  these  have  in  recent 
years  been  the  subject  of  revision.  4  he  triangulation  of  the  Lake 


INTERNATIONAL  WATERWAYS  COMMISSION  PROGRESS  REPORT.  25 


Survey  has  heen  coimected  with  that  of  tlie  Coast  and  Geodetic  Survey 
and  from  this  connection  has  heen  derived  tlie  Lhiited  States  standard 
<latuin,  to  which  all  the  more  recent  charts  are  referred.  It  is  found 
that  considerable  corrections  are  required  to  give  the  older  charts 
their  proper  places  on  the  earth’s  surface,  and  that  admirably  as  these 
charts  serve  their  practical  pur})ose,  which  is  to  aid  navigation,  they 
are  as  published  not  scientifically  and  theoretically  correct.  At  cer¬ 
tain  places  the  information  which  they  furnished  was  not  complete 
enough  for  boundary  ])urposes,  and  additional  field  work  was  required. 
In  the  opinion  of  the  commission  it  was  necessary  to  construct  a  new 
set  of  charts,  and  with  the  approval  of  the  two  Governments  that  work 
was  undertaken. 

41.  The  new  charts  are  to  be  30  in  number,  including  an  index 
chart.  There  will  be  18  charts  on  a  scale  of  1 : 20,000,  to  include  7  for 
the  St.  Lawrence  River,  2  for  the  Niagara  River,  2  for  the  Detroit 
River,  2  for  the  St.  Clair  River,  4  for  the  St.  Marys  River,  and  1  for 
Pigeon  Bay;  5  cliarts  on  a  scale  of  1:60,000,  to  include  1  each  for  the 
eastern  end  of  Lake  Ontario,  the  western  end  of  Lake  Erie,  Lake  St. 
Clair,  northern  end  of  Lake  Huron,  and  eastern  end  of  Lake  Superior; 
4  charts  on  a  scale  of  1:300,000,  to  include  1  each  for  Lake  Ontario, 
Lake  P]rie,  Lake  Huron,  and  Lake  Superior;  2  charts  on  a  scale  of 
1:10,000,  to  include  1  each  for  Niagara  Falls  and  Saiilt  Ste.  Marie; 
and  1  index  chart  on  a  scale  of  1:1,200,000.  They  are  to  be  of  the 
uniform  size  of  40  inches  by  50  inches  within  the  border.  They  will 
show  the  shore  lines  of  the  lakes,  rivers,  islands,  and  the  mouths  of 
the  more  important  streams;  the  location  of  all  the  principal  cities 
and  towns  and  of  all  the  lighthouses  and  other  ])ermanent  aids  to 
navigation;  all  hydrography  available  from  the  United  States  and 
Canadian  surveys;  all  the  geographic  positions  upon  which  the  pro¬ 
jections  are  based;  and  the  boundary  line,  with  all  monuments  used 
to  mark  it;  unnecessary  topography  and  all  other  matter  not  neces¬ 
sary  for  the  special  purpose  wiU  be  omitted.  They  will  be  projected 
and  drawn  directly  upon  copper  plates,  from  which  exact  copies  may 
be  made  in  any  desired  number.  Distortion  of  scale  and  errors  in 
copying  will  thus  be  avoided.  One  set  of  cop])er  i)lates  having  been 
prepared  a  diqdicate  set  will  be  made  by  electrotyping,  and  one  set 
then  deposited  in  the  archives  of  each  Government. 

42.  Through  the  courtes}’"  of  the  Secretary  of  the  Treasury,  addi¬ 
tional  rooms  in  the  Federal  building  at  Buffalo  were  assigned  for  the 
use  of  the  commission,  and  the  necessary  furniture  provided,  certain 
special  articles  being  made  to  order  from  designs  furnished  by  the 
commission.  C’ompetent  experts  for  projecting  the  charts  and  on- 
graving  them  on  copper  were  emj)loyed,  and  the  work  was  fairly 
inaugurated  in  the  autumn  of  1908.  It  was  under  the  immediate 
personal  direction  of  the  American  secretary  of  the  commission,  but 
was  closely  supervised  by  a  committee  composed  of  Prof.  Haskell, 
representing  the  U  nited  States,  and  Mr.  Stewart,  representing 
Canada,  vvdio  in  turn  re]>orted  and  received  instructions  at  every  meet¬ 
ing  of  the  full  comnTission.  The  expert  employees  were  taken  from 
both  countries  in  equal  mnubers  as  far  as  possible.  There  was  much 
difhculty  in  finding  suitable  persons  as  engravers. 

43.  ddie  greater  j)art  of  the  data  for  the  new  charts  were  to  be 
found  in  the  Engineer  Bureau  of  the  War  Department.  Ihider  the 
authoritv  of  the  wSecretarv  of  War,  the  C  hief  of  Engineers,  I  nited 


26  INTEKNATIONAL  WATERWAYS  COMMISSION  PROGRESS  REPORT. 

States  Army,  placed  at  the  disposal  of  the  commission  the  original 
large  scale  manuscript  charts  constructed  in  the  office  of  the  Lake 
Survey,  and  other  records  of  his  bureau.  The  commission  has  been 
constantly  in  correspondence  with  that  bureau,  and  we  desire  to 
acknowledge  the  promptness  and  courtesy  of  the  two  successive 
Chiefs  of  Eengineers,  who  have  lield  office  since  the  work  began,  Gen. 
W.  L.  Marshall  and  Gen.  W.  H.  Bixby,  in  answering  all  of  its  calls  for 
information.  Much  valuable  information  was  obtained  from  the 
Canadian  Hydrographic  Survey.  It  was  found  necessary,  however, 
to  send  out  surveying  parties  to  make  a  considerable  number  of  de¬ 
tached  surveys  to  supplement  the  information  on  record.  The  com¬ 
mission  has  made  16  separate  surveys  in  all,  some  of  them,  as  the 
Niagara  River,  from  Lake  Erie  to  the  Falls,  being  quite  extended. 
It  is  believed  that  but  little  more  field  work  will  be  necessary. 

44.  The  work  upon  the  charts  is  of  two  kinds,  viz.,  constructing  or 
drafting  work,  and  cutting  the  copper  or  engraving  work.  In  the 
following  table  is  given  the  state  of  completion  of  each  kind  of  work 
upon  each  chart  on  the  1st  of  November,  1912: 


1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 
9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 
IG 

17 

18 

19 

20 
21 
22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

29 

30 


Per  cent  completed 
Nov.  1,  1912. 

Chart. 

Scale. 

Engrav¬ 

ing. 

Drafting. 

• 

St.  I>awrence  River . 

1:  20,000 
1:  20,000 
1:  20,000 
1:  20,000 
1:  20,000 
1:  20,000 
1:  20,000 
1:  60,000 
1:300,000 
1:  20,000 
1:  10,000 
1:  20,000 
1:300,000 
1:  60,000 
1:  20,000 

98 

100 

. do . 

98 

100 

. do . 

98 

100 

. do . 

98 

100 

. do . 

98 

100 

. do . 

98 

100 

. do . 

98 

100 

Eastern  end  of  Lake  Ontario . 

90 

90 

Lake  Ontario . 

55 

Nias^ara  River . 

98 

100 

. do . 

98 

100 

. do . 

98 

98 

Lake  Erie . 

98 

98 

Western  end  of  Lake  Erie . 

98 

100 

Detroit  River . 

98 

100 

. do . 

1:  20,000 
1:  60,000 
1:  20,000 
1:  20,000 
1:300,000 
1:  60,000 
1:  20,000 
1:  20,000 
1:  20,000 
1:  10,000 
1:  20,000 
1:  60,000 
1:.300,000 
1:  20,000 

98 

100 

Lake  St.  Clair . 

98 

100 

St.  Claii  Ri\er . 

98 

100 

. do . 

98 

100 

Lake  Huron . 

20 

North  end  of  Lake  Huron . 

70 

100 

St.  Marys  River . 

98 

100 

. do . 

98 

100 

. do . 

98 

100 

. do . 

95 

98 

_ _ do . 

98 

100 

Eastern  end  of  Lake  Superior . 

98 

100 

Lake  Superior . 

95 

Pigeon  Bay . 

90 

100 

Index . 

10 

100 

Total . 

83.7 

95.1 

About  84  per  cent  of  the  total  work  of  engraving  and  about  95  per 
cent  of  the  total  work  of  drafting  upon  aU  the  charts  was  completed 
November  1,  1912. 

45.  A  decision  as  to  the  actual  location  of  tltc  boundary  is  being 
reached  by  successive  steps,  and  can  not  be  made  final  until  the  new 
charts  are  completed.  The  engineer  members  of  the  commission 
pre])ared  a  tentative  delineation  of  the  line  on  the  existing  charts, 
replacing  the  curves  in  the  old  line  by  a  series  of  straight  lines, 
which  they  presented  to  the  commission  at  its  meeting  of  December 


-  ■ 


I  • 

>  t 


r> 


K  -  '•-< 

f  • 


.y' 


*  ^  A  ■ 


r  *  -  ■  / 


.» •'.  ■  ■■ ' 

* 


■i  .<r.-. 


:>/ .. . 


■  ’■■  <  ^  .  rj 

1^  %-r--  : '  ■  ’  -  .  ■ 


^  ’  ♦  * 


.r 


% 

■t 


■j  ’:••  ,  *  ■;  •  ■-  ■■  -  ■ 

»  .  -■  '  ::i— A  -  vt 


•  '■*  '  ,'  ''  i'V  I  "■  ^'  ,'• 

'  ■  .*  '  ,r  ^  • 


> 


>1’ 


■••X 


■■^•.••V*  \aJ  :. 


t  % 

\  S 
■  .  4 


I*,,  • 

^  * 


-  ’  •  ■■  .  r  ■■> '.alM  .■ 

c*  ,  r  ■  Tv-  -  \  ■•  •  -  4'  ‘  •*  ; 

V ■■  ■; •■  i2^.  ■  \y~  ■■'  ‘  ■  ^  .•■  ■  •  ** 

W'i  BCL^  '•  ,  ,■  *•-  **  ■  •  .  ..V  •  ;.  .  ■*  tr  *  •■  *\* 


-  T  '  ^-v  -*'  ■-•  7'  ■  ■  ** 

'' •■  V  ■  V*.-  ‘  --r. 

■_P"  -.  ,*5'*  V ■ , ■  ■  .-'.  ••’'•->.■>•.  •,. 

^y. '  :'y 


^  fjty  :  ■■  vv:  ■  .  -'s  j>v'‘‘':..,  ,v 

Vt-  X  ‘N  .  \  ^  ^  '"ffUSOfr  % .  w 


.4  -  ^ 


I  - 
\ 


»  *  • 


,*  i  * 


•  ••  fif:^0•:.v:vr :  ^  •;  'V  •  ,  r  ’M.  .  _  ■  *.  -  .• 

t . .  -  V  ■  «• ,' '  >•  A*  »■«*'.  ’4  ^'^*  ’'■  •  •  '•  ■  11'  *  ^  \»  t  ’  ' 

■  *•>-.  r..  .-.3.  . 

'  *  ■’ ,  ■'.:  ■.  .  .  •  '  '■'V'fX*  '  ■' '* 


—  r  ^  1  *  , 

•<-'  .*  ,  /:!:■  ' 
'  /.i- 

» ♦  ■  iK  V  •  ■  • 


''4 


< 


.•  ' !?  ,  PT.  . 


Senate  Document  No.  959,  62-3. 


Plate  I. 


TYPICAL  MONUMENT. 

Hciftht  above  ground,  2  feet  G  inches;  diameter  at  base,  2  feet;  diameter  at  top,  l  foot  6  inclies; 
radius  of  liemisidierical  top,  inches;  foundation  to  extend  5  feet  below  surface  of  ground; 
material,  concrete;  copper  pin  inserted  in  the  top  to  mark  the  i>oint  Avith  precision. 


INTERNATIONAL  WATERWAYS  COMMISSION  PROGRESS  REPORT.  27 

23,  1908.  It  was  intended  as  a  ])reliminary  study,  and  no  action  was 
taken  except  to  consider  and  discuss  it.  As  the  work  of  constructing 
the  charts  ])rogrcsse<.l  it  was  found  desirable  to  know  approximately 
the  location  of  the  boundary  before  the  completion  of  the  cop])erplates 
in  order  to  avoid  cutting  the  soundings  in  a  way  which  would  interfere 
with  the  clear  delineation  of  that  line.  It  seemed  ])ossible  to  make  a 
location  upon  existing  charts  which  would  answer  these  requirements 
and  woidd  be  another  ste])  toward  the  future  final  location.  At  its 
sessions  of  August  3  and  4,  1909,  the  commission  went  over  the 
existing  charts  with  great  care,  having  before  them  the  re])ort  dated 
June  18,  1822,  of  the  commissioners  ap])ointed  under  the  treaty  of 
Ghent,  llecemher  24,  1814;  also  the  Webster- Ashburton  treaty  of 
August  9,  1842;  also  the  protocol  of  a  conference  held  at  the  British 
foreign  office  December  9,  1850.  They  tentatively  agreed  upon  a 
line  which  they  fixed  u])on  the  old  charts  as  accurately  as  the  scale 
of  the  charts  woidd  ])ermit,  with  the  understanding  that  at  any  time 
thereafter,  either  side  should  he  at  liberty  to  ])ropose  alterations. 
Later  on,  as  the  new  charts  reached  a  sufficiently  advanced  stage, 
proofs  were  struck  off,  and  the  tentative  line  was  transferred  to 
them.  The  necessity  of  a  revision  at  some  places  then  became  evi¬ 
dent.  When  the  work  of  marking  the  boundary  u])on  the  ground 
was  taken  u]),  the  desirability  of  ailditional  changes  appeared.  These 
changes  have  been  made  from  time  to  time,  until  now  it  may  be  said 
that  the  line  has  been  agreed  u])on  excejit  at  three  ])laces — Niagara 
Falls,  Lake  St.  Clair,  and  Saidt  Ste.  Marie.  Although  the  tentative 
agreement  a})])lies  to  these  places  also,  there  are  some  differences 
which  may  cause  the  question  to  be  reo])ened. 

46.  ^fuch  study  was  given  to  the  form  and  character  of  the  monu¬ 
ments  to  be  used  in  marking  the  boundary  iqion  the  grouml.  In  the 
climate  of  the  Great  Lakes  a  buoy  is  a  tenqiorary  device  which,  if 
used,  must  he  taken  iqi  at  the  end  of  navigation  in  the  autumn  and 
re])laced  in  the  s])ring,  and  can  be  enqdoyed  only  by  some  permanent 
organization.  Permanent  monuments  alone  are  available  for  this 
commission.  Manifestly  it  is  not  exjiedient  to  jdace  such  monu¬ 
ments  upon  the  turning  jioints  inasmuch  as  these  points  are  all  in 
water,  where  m  many  cases  the  monuments  would  be  obstructions  to 
navigation,  and  where  they  would  often  be  very  costly  to  build  on 
account  of  great  de])th.  It  was  decided  to  ])lace  them  on  shore,  one 

.as  near  as  ])racticable  to  each  turning  point.  With  the  range  and 
distance  of  the  turning  ])oint  known  it  will  be  easy  to  find  it  when¬ 
ever  it  may  be  necessary  to  know  it  with  precision.  After  careful 
investigation  it  was  decided  to  build  the  monuments  of  concrete,  in 
the  form  of  the  frustrum  of  a  cone  with  a  hemis])herical  top.  The 
height  above  ground  is  2  feet  6  inches;  diameter  at  base,  2  feet; 
diameter  at  top,  1  foot  6  inches;  radius  of  hemisjiherical  to]),  9  inches; 
foundation  to  extend  5  feet  below  the  surface  of  the  ground,  co])- 
per  ])ui  is  inserted  in  the  top  to  mark  the  })oint  with  ])recision.  Each 
monument  has  a  se])arate  number  cast  in  its  side  at  the  time  of  fabri¬ 
cation.  A  ])hotogra})h  of  one  of  these  monuments  is  inclosed. 

47.  The  work  of  ])lacing  the  monuments  was  begun  upon  a  small 
scale  on  the  St.  Lawrence  Kiver  in  eluly,  1910.  It  was  ex])erimental 
and  resulted  in  demonstrating  the  neatness  and  clfectiveness  of 
the  type  adoj)tcd.  It  was  pushed  with  vigor  during  the  seasons  of 
1911  and  1912,  and  was  completed  in  September  of  the  latter  year. 


28  INTERNATIONAL  WATERWAYS  COAIMISSION  PROGRESS  REPORT. 

The  niunbor  of  nionumonts  ])laced  is  88  on  the  St.  La’s\Tcnce  River, 
34  on  the  Niagara  River,  58  on  the  Detroit  and  St.  Clair  Rivers,  43 
on  the  St.  Alarys  River,  and  4  on  Pigeon  Bay,  or  227  in  all. 

48.  In  attempting  to  connect  these  monuments  with  the  old 
surveys  it  was  found  that  a  large  number  of  the  old  station  marks 
left  by  the  Lake  Survey  had  disappeared,  and  that  it  was  necessary 
to  connect  the  monuments  bv  a  new  triangulation  svstem.  The 
field  parties  were  organized  so  as  to  take  the  necessary  observations 
in  connection  with  building  the  monuments.  It  is  necessarv  to 
work  up  these  notes,  and  compute  therefrom  the  geographical  posi¬ 
tion  of  each  monument  before  it  can  be  placed  upon  the  chart. 
Considerable  progress  has  been  made  in  this  work,  but  it  will  prob¬ 
ably  require  the  greater  part  of  the  current  year  to  complete  it  and 
after  its  completion  some  months  more  will  be  required  to  place  the 
results  upon  the  charts. 

FURTHER  DUTIES  OF  THE  COMMISSION.  ^ 

49.  From  the  foregoing  recital  it  appears  that  many  questions 
have  arisen  and  been  considered  which  were  not  anticipated  when 
the  commission  was  created,  except  in  a  very  general  way.  It  was 
expected  that  questions  generally  resembling  these  would  arise, 
but  exactlv  what  they  would  be  was  not  known.  It  seems  certain 
that  similar  questions  will  arise  hereafter.  All  such  questions  will 
be  considered  by  the  International  Joint  Commission  created  by  the 
treaty  between  the  United  States  and  Great  Britain,  dated  Jan¬ 
uary  11,  1909.  That  commission  takes  the  place  of  the  Interna¬ 
tional  Waterways  Commission  in  the  consideration  of  all  new  ques¬ 
tions.  The  latter  has  therefore  completed  the  work  for  which  it 
was  originally  organized,  except  its  final  report  upon  a  dam  at  the 
outlet  of  Lake  Erie.  It  has  assumed  that  it  would  be  allowed  and 
expected  to  complete  its  work  upon  that  subject,  the  difficulty  and 
im})ortance  of  which  have  been  explained  in  an  earlier  part  of  this 
report.  There  are  not  two  commissions  covering  the  same  ground, 
but  rather  one  commission  retiring  from  a  field  which  it  has  long 
occupied  and  clearing  the  ground  for  its  successor. 

50.  Quite  distinct  from  the  duties  of  investigation  and  report 
assigned  to  the  commission  when  it  was  originally  organized  are 
the  executive  duties  assigned  to  it  by  Article  IV  of  the  treaty  between  . 
the  Lhiited  States  and  Great  Britain,  dated  April  11,  1908.  The 
treaty  is  specific  in  designating  the  ‘Existing  International  Water¬ 
ways  Commission’’  as  the  agency  by  which  a  certain  specified  por¬ 
tion  of  the  boundary  is  to  be  defined,  delineated  upon  charts,  and 
marked  upon  the  ground.  For  this  purpose  the  International 
Joint  Commission  does  not  take  the  place  of  the  International  Water¬ 
ways  Commission.  Tlie  work  is  mainly  engineering  work,  and 
should  be,  as  it  is,  in  the  hands  of  a  commission  composed  mainly  of 
engineers. 

51.  The  commission  therefore  has  two  pieces  of  work  to  com¬ 
plete  before  it  can  with  propriety  go  out  of  existence;  one  its  final 
report  upon  a  dam  at  the  outlet  of  Lake  Erie  and  the  other  its 
work  upon  the  boundary.  International  courtesy  requires  that  the 
American  members  be  allowed  to  join  in  completing  the  former,  and 
treaty  obligations  as  well  as  international  courtesy  require  the  same 
regarding  the  latter. 


INTERNATIONAL  WATERWAYS  COMMISSION  PROGRESS  REPORT.  29 

52.  The  Aniericaii  meinbers  have  rendered  annual  re])orts  to  tlie 
Secretary  of  War  since  their  organization  and  to  the  Secretary  of 
State  also  since  ]9()<S,  hut  the  work  of  the  connnission  has  been 
unobtrusive,  and  much  of  it  has  u])  to  this  time  not  been  well  known 
to  Con«:ress.  We  can  not  but  think  that  the  provision  in  the  act 
approved  August  24,  1912,  calling  for  this  re])ort  and  limiting  tlie 
a])propriation  for  the  su])])ort  of  the  commission  to  ]4ecember  31, 
1912,  means  simply  that  Congress  desires  information  before  making 
further  approj)riation,  and  has  no  intention  of  ])utting  a  sudden  stop 
to  important  work,  in  an  unfinished  condition,  in  which  we  are 
engage<l  with  a  foreign  nation. 

53.  It  will  be  quite  impossible  for  the  commission  to  complete  its 
work  bv  December  31,  1912.  From  a  year  to  15  months  more  time 
than  that  will  be  required.  As  has  already  been  stated,  the  project  of 
June  23,  1908,  for  the  boundary  work  gave  no  estimate  of  the  time 
recpiired.  The  novelty  of  the  work,  as  well  as  the  uncertainty  as  to 
what  amount  of  surveying  in  the  field  would  be  recpiired,  made  it 
impossible  to  estimate  the  length  of  time  which  would  be  needed. 
The  commission  as  a  body  has  never  expressed  any  opinion  upon  the 
subject.  Some  of  its  members  believed  at  the  outset  that  the  work 
could  be  completed  in  three  or  four  years,  and  the  chairman  of  the 
American  section,  in  answer  to  a  question,  once  expressed  that  oj)inion 
to  the  Appropriations  Cnmmittee  of  the  House  of  Representatives.  It 
has  proved  to  be  erroneous,  but  the  error  has  done  no  harm.  The  treaty 
required  the  work  to  be  done  without  reference  to  either  time  or  cost. 
The  opinion  was  not  given  until  after  the  project  had  been  adopted, 
the  character  of  the  work  defined,  and  the  work  itself  well  started.  It 
had  no  influence  upon  the  question  of  accepting  or  rejecting  the 
project.  The  only  precedent  of  which  we  have  knowledge  which  can 
give  an  approximate  idea  of  the  time  required  to  do  this  kind  of  work, 
is  that  of  the  commissioners  under  the  treaty  of  Ghent,  who  preceded 
us  in  going  over  this  same  ground.  Those  commissioners  held  their 
first  meeting  November  18,  1816.  Five  and  one-half  years  later, 
June  18,  1822,  they  reported  an  agreement  as  to  a  portion  of  the  line, 
and  a  disagreement  as  to  another  portion.  They  held  their  final 
meeting  December  24,  1827,  having  submitted  separate  reports  con¬ 
cerning  the  portion  in  disagreement,  that  of  the  British  commissioner 
dated  October  25,  1827,  and  that  of  the  American  commissioner 
December  12,  1827.  Thus  they  were  engaged  upon  the  work  more 
than  11  years  in  all,  and  were  unable  to  complete  it.  These  facts  were 
known  to  those  who  negotiated  the  treaty  of  April  11,  1908,  under 
which  we  are  acting.  The  commission  has  pushed  the  work  as  ra})idly 
as  it  was  able  to  do  it.  In  the  light  of  experience  it  may  now  be  posi¬ 
tively  stated  that  the  length  of  time  employed  is  not  unreasonable. 
It  is  to  be  remarked  that  the  marking  of  certain  portions  of  the  line  not 
intrusted  to  this  commission  will  not  be  completed  until  several  years 
after  the  completion  of  the  commissioids  work. 

54.  Funds  for  the  use  of  the  commission  are  provided  upon  two 
separate  appropriation  bills;  those  for  the  support  of  the  commission 
itself  upon  the  sundry  civil  bill  upon  estimates  submitted  by  the  War 
Department;  those  for  the  special  work  upon  the  boundary,  exclusive 
of  the  support  of  the  commission,  upon  the  di})lomatic  and  consular 
appropriation  bill,  upon  estimates  submitted  by  the  State  Depart¬ 
ment.  For  the  latter  the  amount  originally  estimated  was  $80,000, 


30  INTEENATIONAL  WATERWAYS  COMMISSION  PROGRESS  REPORT. 

all  of  which  has  been  appropriated,  but  as  explained  in  paragraph  36, 
an  additional  appropriation  of  $5,000  will  be  needed  to  complete  the 
work.  This  additional  appropriation  and  the  unexpended  portions 
of  former  appropriations  for  the  boundary  cannot  be  used,  however, 
unless  provision  be  made  for  the  support  of  the  commission  itself. 
The  annual  appropriations  for  that  purpose  have  been  $20,000,  prac¬ 
tically  all  of  which  has  been  expended  in  the  salaries  of  the  commis¬ 
sioners  and  their  secretary,  traveling  expenses,  office  rent,  clerical 
services,  and  other  necessary  office  expenses.  For  the  current  year 
the  appropriation  is  only  $10,000,  and  is  available  only  for  the  first 
half  of  the  year,  that  is,  until  December  31,  1912.  Application  will 
be  made  for  $10,000  to  be  appropriated  in  the  urgent  deficiency  bill, 
to  cover  the  second  half  of  the  year.  A  list  of  all  the  appropriations 
heretofore  made  by  Congress  for  the  use  of  the  commission  will  be 
found  in  Appendix  O. 

55.  There  is  still  some  doubt  as  to  the  length  of  time  required  to 
finally  complete  the  work,  as  must  always  be  the  case  where  two 
coordinate  independent  bodies,  such  as  the  two  sections  of  an  inter¬ 
national  commission,  are  working  together;  but  it  is  reasonable  to 
hope  that  it  can  be  completed  by  the  1st  of  April,  1914.  In  its  esti¬ 
mate  for  the  next  fiscal  year  the  American  section  has  therefore 
asked  for  funds  sufficient  to  carry  it  to  that  date,  or  $15,000.  The 
total  amount  remaining  to  be  appropriated  then  is  for — 

Special  boundary  work,  diplomatic  and  consular  bill . $5,000 

Support  of  commission, second  half  of  current  fiscal  year,  urgent  deficiency  bill.  10,  000 
Support  of  commission,  part  of  fiscal  year  1913-14 .  15,  000 

Total .  30,  000 

Very  respectfully, 

O.  H.  Ernst, 

Brig.  Gen.,  TJ.  S.  A.,  Retired, 
Chairman  of  American  Section. 

George  Clinton, 

Member  of  American  Section. 

E.  E.  Haskell, 

Member  of  American  Section. 

Attest: 

W.  Edward  Wilson, 

Secretary  of  American  Section. 


Just  of  Appendixes. 

a.  Report  upon  the  water-power  situation  at  Niagara  Falls,  as  concerns  the  Canadian 
power  companies,  and  their  associated  transmission  companies,  by  the  American 
members,  September  29,  1906. 

B.  Report  upon  the  water-power  situation  at  Niagara  Falls,  as  concerns  the  diversion 

of  water  on  the  American  side,  by  the  American  members,  November  15,  1906. 

C.  Report  upon  the  form  of  permit  for  the  diversion  of  water  from  the  Erie  Canal,  by 

the  American  members,  March  5,  1907. 

D.  Report  upon  the  request  of  the  Niagara  Falls  Hydraulic  Power  &  Manufacturing 

('o.  that  they  be  protected  in  their  rights  in  any  treaty  negotiated  with  Great 
Britain,  by  the  American  members,  September  9,  1907. 

E.  Report  upon  the  diversion  of  water  at  the  MTiirlpool  Rapids  below  the  Falls  in 

Niagara  River,  by  the  commission,  March  3,  1908. 

F.  Report  upon  the  conditions  existing  at  Sault  Ste.  Marie,  by  the  commission,  May 

3,  1906. 


INTERNATIONAL  WATERWAYS  COMMISSION  PROGRESS  REPORT.  31 


G.  Report  upon  the  application  of  the  Minnesota  Canal  &  Power  Co.  for  permission 
to  divert  certain  waters  in  Minnesota  from  their  natural  flow,  which  is  into 
boundary  waters,  by  the  commission,  November  15,  190G. 
il.  Re])ort  upon  the  ayiplication  of  the  International  Development  Co.  for  permission 
to  construct  regulating  works  in  the  Richelieu  River,  by  the  commission, 
November  15,  1906. 

I.  Report  upon  the  Chicago  Drainage  Canal,  by  the  commission,  January  4,  1907. 

K.  Report  upon  the  location  of  the  international  boundary  through  I^ake  Erie,  by  the 

commission,  January  4,  1907. 

L.  Report  upon  the  application  of  the  Cedar  Rapids  Manufacturing  &  Power  Co.  for 

permission  to  build  power  works  in  the  St.  T.awrence  River  at  Cedars,  in  the 
county  of  Soulanges,  by  the  commission,  Ajiril  13,  1909. 

M.  Rejiort  upon  the  application  of  the  Long  Sault  Development  Co.  for  legislation  to 

authorize  the  construction  of  power  works  in  the  St.  Lawrence  River,  near 
Long  Sault  Island,  by  the  American  members,  March  11,  1910. 

N.  Project  for  the  more  complete  definition  and  demarcation  of  the  international 

boundarv,  under  Article  IV  of  the  treaty  of  April  11,  1908,  by  the  commission, 
June  23,  1908. 

O.  List  of  appropriations  heretofore  made  for  the  use  of  the  International  Waterways 

Commission. 


APPENDIX  A. 


Report  upon  the  Water  Power  Situation  at  Niagara  Falls,  as  Concerns  the 

Canadian  Power  Companies  and  their  Associated  Transmission  Companies, 

BY  THE  American  Members,  September  29,  1906. 

International  Waterways  Commission, 

Office  of  American  Section, 
Buffalo,  N.  Y.,  September  29,  1906. 

Mr.  Secretary:  The  American  members  of  the  International  Waterways  Com¬ 
mission  have  examined  the  report  dated  August  15,  1906,  by  Capt.  Charles  W.  Kutz, 
Corps  of  Engineers, United  States  Army,  upon  the  subject  of  permits  to  the  power 
companies  at  Niagara  Falls,  referred  to  them  by  your  indorsement  of  September  5. 
They  have  the  honor  to  return  it  herewith  and  to  submit,  in  connection  therewith, 
the  following  remarks:  r 

In  our  report  dated  March  19,  1906,  we  stated  that  the  works  projected  on  the 
American  side  at  Niagara  Falls  would  produce  342,000  horsepower,  besides  a  small 
amount  on'the  Erie  Canal,  and  would  consume  about  28,000  cubic  feet  of  water  per 
second,  while  those  projected  on  the  Canadian  side  would  produce  432,000  horse¬ 
power,  besides  a  small  amount  on  the  Welland  Canal,  and  would  consume  about 
36,000  cubic  feet  of  water  per  second.  We  thought  that  the  amount  on  the  Ameri¬ 
can  side  could  be  reduced  to  242,000  horsepower,  using  18,500  cubic  feet  of  water 
per  second,  without  inflicting  undue  hardship  upon  invested  capital,  but  we  doubted 
the  expediency  of  attempting  to  withdraw  the  other  rights  acquired  by  the  power 
companies  at  Niagara  Falls.  These  views  were  adopted  by  Congress  with  quali¬ 
fications. 

In  the  act  approved  June  29,  1906,  the  amount  of  water  to  be  diverted  on  the 
American  side  was  cut  down  to  15,600  cubic  feet  per  second  in  the  first  instance, 
but  with  the  provision  that  additional  amounts  may  be  diverted  after  an  interval 
of  not  less  than  six  months  if  it  be  found  that  that  can  be  done  without  detriment 
to  Niagara  Falls  or  the  river. 

T'he  amount  of  power  to  be  generated  on  the  Canadian  side  was  cut  down  from 
423,000  to  350,000  horsepower,  the  control  of  Congress  in  the  matter  arising  from 
the  fact  that  a  very  large  percentage  of  the  Canadian  output  must,  under  present 
conditions,  find  a  market  in  the  United  States.  Under  no  circumstances  is  the  total 
to  be  increased;  but  the  amount  which  may  be  transmitted  to  the  United  States 
is  to  be  diminished  as  the  amount 'consumed  in  Canada  shall  increase.  In  this  slid¬ 
ing  scale  a  limit  is  fixed  which  divides  the  p  t  nits  into  two  kinds,  one  of  which 
may  possibly  be  expected  to  have  somewhat  more  permanency  that  the  other, 
viz,  permits  to  transmit  electrical  power  from  Canada  into  the  United  States  to  an 
aggregate  amount  of  160,000  hors-^power  and  revocable  permits  for  the  trans'mission 
of  additional  electrical  power  to  the  extent  just  indicated.  It  appears  to  us  that 
this  distinction  was  made  for  the  p’lrpose  of  giving  a  little  more  assurance  of  perma¬ 
nency  to  certain  of  the  permits  than  it  was  possible  to  give  to  all  of  them,  and  not  for 
the  purpose  of  trying  an  experiment  as  to  the  effect  upon  the  Falls  of  the  diversion 
of  a  quantity  of  water  so  indefinite  in  amount.  This  view  seems  confirmed  by  the 
fact  that  the  maximum  amount  allowed  on  the  Canadian  side,  350,000  horsepower, 
is  about  83  per  cent  of  the  amount  mentioned  in  the  report,  423,000  horsepower,  while 
the  amount  allowed  on  the  American  side,  15,600  cubic  feet  per  second,  is  about  84 
per  cent  of  that  mentioned  in  the  report,  the  percentage  of  reduction  thus  being 
practically  the  same  in  the  two  cas^s.  We  see  no  reason  why  revocable  permits  for 
the  transmission  of  power  from  Canada  into  the  United  States,  additional  to  the 
160,000  horsepower  first  to  be  authorized,  should  not  be  issued  without  delay  if  appli¬ 
cation  for  such  permits  be  received. 

The  law  provides  for  the  issuance  by  the  Secretary  of  War  of  four  kinds  of  permits, 
viz: 

1.  Permits  to  divert  water  from  the  Niagara  River  on  the  American  side  to  an 
aggregate  amount  not  exceeding  15,600  cubic  feet  per  second. 

2.  Revocable  permits  to  divert  alditional  water  from  the  Niagara  River  on  the 
American  side  to  such  amount,  if  anv,  as  shall  not  injure  the  river  as  a  navigable 
stream  or  as  a  boundary  stream,  an  I  shall  not  injure  the  scenic  grandeur  of  Niagara 
Falls;  but  no  such  permit  shall  be  issued  until  approximately  the  15,600  cubic  feet 

32 


INTERNATIONAL  WATERWAYS  COMMISSION  PROGRESS  REPORT.  33 


per  second  mentioned  above  shall  have  been  diverted  for  a  ])eriod  of  not  less  than  six 
months. 

3.  Permits  to  transmit  electrical  power  from  Canada  into  the  United  States  to  an 
ajifgregate  amount  of  100,000  horsepower. 

4.  Revocable  permits  for  the  transmission  of  additional  electrical  power  from 
Canada  into  the  United  States,  but  in  no  case  shall  the  amount  included  in  such 
permits,  together  with  the  1(50,000  horsepower  mentioned  above,  and  the  amount 
generated  and  used  in  Canada  exceed  350,000  horse])ower. 

Applications  have  been  received  for  permits  of  the  first  and  third  kinds,  but  in  this 
report  Capt.  Kutz  confines  himself  to  a  consideration  of  those  relating  to  the  trans¬ 
mission  of  power  from  Canada  into  the  United  States,  deferring  to  a  future  report  all 
that  concerns  the  diversion  of  water  on  the  American  side,  lie  defers  also  a  con¬ 
sideration  of  the  question  of  granting  transmission  permits  for  amounts  additional  to  the 
first  1(50,000  horsepower,  expressing  the  opinion  that  it  is  “the  intent  of  the  law  to 
delay  the  issue  of  such  permits  until  it  is  known  what  appreciable  effect,  if  any,  will  be 
produced  on  the  Falls  by  the  diversion  of  the  amount  of  water  that  will  be  used  under 
the  first  limitation.”  As  above  stated,  we  do  not  concur  in  that  opinion;  but  the  fact 
that  no  applications  have  been  received  for  permits  of  this  kind  is  sufficient  reason 
for  not  discussing  them  at  this  time. 

Applications  for  the  transmission  of  power  have  been  received  from  four  companies, 
including  the  International  Railway  Co.,  whose  rights  under  Canadian  law  to  transmit 
power  to  the  United  States  are  in  dispute  and  whose  claims  are  small  compared  with 
those  of  the  other  companies.  Capt.  Kutz  recommends  that  no  permit  be  issued  to 
that  company  at  this  time,  but  that  2,500  horsepower  be  reserved  for  the  present  in 
order  that  it  may  be  jiossible  to  grant  the  company  a  permit  for  that  amount  hereafter 
should  the  controversy  over  its  rights  under  the  Canadian  laws  be  decided  in  its  favor. 
In  that  recommendation  we  concur. 

There  will  remain  157,500  horsepower  to  be  divided  among  the  three  remaining 
applicants.  These  a])pli(‘ants  are  the  American  transmission  companies,  but  their 
interests  are  identical  with  those  of  the  Canadian  companies  from  whom  they  derive 
power  and  must  be  considered  in  connection  therewith.  They  are: 

1.  Niagara,  Lock})ort  &  Ontario  Co.,  taking  power  from  the  Ontario  Power  Co., 
applying  for  90,000  horse])Ower. 

2.  Electrical  Transmission  Co.,  taking  power  from  the  Electrical  Development  Co., 
applying  for  62,500  horsepower. 

3.  Niagara  Falls  Power  Co.,  taking  power  from  the  Canadian  Niagara  Power  Co., 
applying  for  121,500  horsepower. 

The  application  of  the  Niagara  Falls  Power  Co.  is  for  11,500  horsepower  more  than 
the  capacity  of  the  works  from  which  it  is  to  derive  power  when  completed  as  designed. 
The  other  companies  ask  for  one-half  of  the  capacity  of  the  works  furnishing  the  power 
when  completed  as  designed  The  total  amount  asked  for  is  274,000  horsepower. 

Capt.  Kutz  has  spared  no  pains  in  the  collection  of  all  the  facts  which  have  a  bearing 
upon  the  question  of  how  the  available  amount  shall  be  divided  among  the  three 
companies.  After  a  careful  consideration  of  the  amounts  of  capital  invested  in  the 
power  plants,  the  amounts  required  to  complete  the  works  as  designed,  their  capacity 
as  completed  under  expenditures  now  made  or  pledged,  their  capacity  as  designed, 
the  amounts  of  capital  invested  in  transmission  lines  in  the  United  States  or  on  Cana¬ 
dian  soil  to  connect  with  the  United  States,  the  contracts  made  for  furnishing  and 
receiving  power,  and  other  data,  he  concludes  that  there  is  uo  sufficient  reason  for 
discrimination  between  the  companies  except  their  relative  ability  to  command  the 
Canadian  market.  The  Electrical  Development  Co.  was  organized  with  that  market 
prominently  in  view  and  is  able  to  obtain  a  sale  there  of  about  25,000  horsepower 
more  than  either  of  the  other  companies.  Its  claim  to  the  American  market  is  dimin¬ 
ished  by  that  amount.  If  the  quantity  allotted  to  that  company  be  37,500  horsepower 
there  will  remain  120,000  horsepower  to  be  equally  divided  between  the  Ontario 
Power  Co.  and  the  Canadian  Niagara  Power  Co.,  giving  them  60,000  horsepower  each. 
We  believe  this  to  be  an  equitable  division  of  the  power  available,  and  we  join  with 
Capt.  Kutz  in  the  recommendation  that  permits  for  the  transmission  of  power  to  the 
United  States  be  granted  to: 

Horsepower. 


The  Niagara,  Lockport  &  Ontario  Co.,  from  the  Ontario  Power  Co .  60,000 

The  Electrical  Transmis.sion  Co.,  from  the  Electrical  Development  Co .  37,  500 

The  Niagara  Falls  Power  Co.,  from  the  Canadian  Niagara  Power  Co .  60,  000 

Yours,  very  respectfully. 


O.  II,  Ernst,  Chairman. 
George  Clinton,  Member. 
E.  E.  Haskell,  Member. 

lion.  W.  II.  Taft,  Secretary  of  War. 

S.  Doc.  959-62-3 - 3 


34  INTERNATIONAL  WATERWAYS  COMMISSION  PROGRESS  REPORT. 


APPENDIX  B. 

Report  upon  the  Water  Power  Situation  at  Niagara  Falls  as  Concerns  the 

Diversion  of  Water  on  the  American  Side,  by  the  American  Members, 

November  15,  1906. 

International  Waterways  Commission, 

Office  of  the  American  Section, 

Buffalo,  N.  Y.,  November  15^  1906. 

Mr.  Secretary:  The  American  members  of  the  International  Waterways  Commis¬ 
sion  have  the  honor  to  return  herewith  the  report,  dated  October  5,  1906,  by  Capt. 
Charles  W.  Kutz,  Corps  of  Engineers,  United  States  Army,  upon  the  subject  of  permits 
for  diverting  water  on  the  American  side  at  Niagara  Falls,  referred  to  them  by  your 
indorsement  of  October  13. 

In  our  report  dated  September  29,  1906,  we  gave  a  brief  description  of  the  four  kinds 
of  permits  authorized  by  the  act  approved  June  29,  1906,  and  we  concurred  in  the 
recommendations  contained  in  Capt.  Kutz’s  report  of  August  15,  1906,  which  referred 
to  permits  of  the  third  kind,  or  those  for  transmitting  electrical  power  from  Canada 
into  the  United  States  to  an  aggregate  amount  of  160,000  horsepower.  The  report  by 
Capt.  Kutz  now  under  consideration  refers  to  permits  of  the  first  kind,  or  those  for 
diverting  water  from  the  Niagara  River  on  the  American  side  to  an  aggregate  amount 
not  exceeding  15,600  cubic  feet  per  second. 

The  conditions  prescribed  in  the  law  for  this  kind  of  permits  are  that — 

1.  They  must  be  issued  “to  individuals,  companies,  or  corporations  which  are  now 
actually  producing  power  from  the  waters  of  said  river  or  its  tributaries  in  the  State 
of  New  York  or  from  the  Erie  Canal.” 

2.  The  amount  of  water  to  be  allowed  must  not  exceed  that  “now  actually  in  use 
or  contracted  to  be  used  in  factories  the  buildings  for  which  are  now  in  process  of 
construction.” 

3.  The  amount  to  be  allowed  “to  any  one  individual,  company,  or  corporation  as 
aforesaid”  must  not  exceed  8,600  cubic  feet  per  second. 

4.  The  total  amount  to  be  allowed  “to  all  individuals,  companies,  or  corporations 
as  aforesaid”  must  not  exceed  an  aggregate  of  15,600  cubic  feet  per  second. 

Applications  have  been  received  from  the  Niagara  Falls  Power  Co.  for  a  permit  to 
divert  8,600  cubic  feet  per  second,  from  the  Niagara  Falls  Hydraulic  Power  &  Manu¬ 
facturing  Co.  for  a  permit  to  divert  6,400  cubic  feet  per  second,  and  from  numerous 
industries  at  Lockport  and  at  Medina,  using  small  quantities  of  water  from  the  Erie 
Canal. 

After  a  careful  examination  of  all  the  circumstances  which  should  affect  a  decision 
as  to  the  amount  of  water  to  be  allowed  under  the  act,  including  the  capital  invested, 
the  present  capacity  of  the  works  and  their  present  output,  the  quantity  of  water  now 
actually  in  use,  the  contracts  made  for  furnishing  power,  with  the  dates  of  such  con¬ 
tracts,  the  future  capacity  of  the  works  as  projected,  and  the  charter  rights  under  New 
York  State  law,  Capt.  Kutz  reaches  the  conclusion  that  a  permit  should  be  granted 
to  the  Niagara  Falls  Power  Co.  for  the  maximum  amount  allowed,  viz,  8,600  cubic 
feet  per  second.  He  finds  that  the  company  and  its  tenants  have  that  amount  actually 
in  use,  and  may  reasonably  ask  for  the  whole  of  it,  and  in  that  opinion  we  concur. 
He  is  in  doubt  whether  it  should  include  the  water  which  is  occasionally  used  for 
sluicing  debris  and  ice.  The  amount  of  this  is  not  accurately  known,  but  it  is  esti¬ 
mated  at  between  600  and  700  cubic  feet  per  second  during  the  sluicing  process.  It 
is  used  only  intermittently.  The  total  amount  thus  used  in  a  year  would,  if  distrib¬ 
uted  throughout  the  year,  be  but  a  small  average  per  second.  The  law  is  explicit  in 
prohibiting  a  permit  for  any  amount  whatever  in  excess  of  8,600  cubic  feet  per  sec¬ 
ond,  but  it  seems  a  reasonable  interpretation  to  take  that  as  the  general  average  and 
to  allow  the  company  to  use  a  slightly  less  amount  during  the  greater  part  of  the  year 
in  order  to  accumulate  enough  water  to  supply  the  demands  of  sluicing  upon  the  occa¬ 
sions  when  it  is  needed. 

After  a  similar  careful  examination  of  all  the  circumstances  relating  to  the  Niagara 
Falls  Hydraulic  Power  &  Manufacturing  Co.  Capt.  Kutz  reaches  the  conclusion  that 
a  permit  should  be  granted  that  company  for  the  diversion  of  5,743  cubic  feet  per 
second,  exclusive  of  the  amount  required  for  sluicing,  or  for  6,403  cubic  feet  per  sec¬ 
ond  if  the  water  for  sluicing  be  included.  The  latter  is  estimated  at  660  cubic  feet 
per  second.  It  seems  to  us  desirable  that  the  permits  to  the  two  companies  should 
resemble  each  other  in  their  provisions  for  sluicing.  If  to  the  5,743  cubic  feet  per 
second  just  mentioned  there  be  added  107  cubic  feet  per  second  as  an  average  for 
sluicing,  an  allowance  will  be  made  for  the  accumulation  of  water  which  will  provide 
660  cubic  feet  per  second  for  sluicing  during  116f  hours  of  each  month,  or  59  days  in 


INTERNATIOXAL  WATP^RWAYS  COMMISSION  PROGRESS  REPORT.  35 


1 


•I 


i 

I 

i 
I 

ii 


.» 

\ 

I 

I 

L 


each  year,  an  allowance  which  is  ample.  Under  this  arrangement  the  amount  to  be 
granted  to  this  com])any  for  the  use  of  itself  and  its  tenants  would  be  5,850  cubic  feet 
per  second. 

The  industries  using  water  from  the  Erie  Canal  are  numerous,  and  the  quantity  of 
water  diverted  is  comparatively  small.  At  Lockport  27  persons  or  corporations  are 
using  water  taken  either  from  the  upper  or  the  lower  level.  It  is  understood  that 
most  of  the  water  from  the  u])])er  level  is  returned  to  the  canal;  but  the  arrangement 
of  tunnels  is  such  that  the  water  has  two  outlets,  and  it  is  impossible  to  determine 
what  portion  is  permanently  diverted  into  Eighteeiimile  Creek.  Many  of  these 
industries  are  located  one  below  the  other  on  Eighteenmile  Creek,  and  use  the  same 
water  successively,  taking  it  from  the  lower  level.  The  quantity  of  water  perma¬ 
nently  diverted  from  the  canal  at  Lockport  is  found  from  measurements  taken  above 
and  below  all  diversions  to  be  upon  an  average  193  cubic  feet  per  second. 

Industries  at  Medina,  N.  Y.,  use  about  105  cubic  feet  per  second.  The  number  of 
the  industries  is  not  given,  but  it  is  understood  that  they  are  in  general  of  about  the 
same  magnitude  as  those  at  Lockport. 

The  total  amount  of  water  diverted  from  the  Erie  Canal  is,  therefore,  358  cubic 
feet  per  second,  and  the  number  of  industries  using  it  is  between  30  and  40.  Many 
of  these  industries  have  made  application  for  ])ermits,  but  many  others  have  not, 
and  of  those  applying  many  use  the  water  which  has  previously  been  used  by  one  or 
more  others.  Manifestly  there  is  difficulty  in  apportioning  the  proper  amount  among 
BO  great  a  number.  After  apportionment  there  would  be  difficulty  in  the  enforcement 
by  the  Federal  authority  of  the  provisions  of  the  permits  if  granted.  The  canal  is 
owned  by  and  is  under  the  exclusive  control  of  the  State  of  New  York.  The  State 
engineer  protests  against  the  granting  by  the  Ihiited  States  of  any  permit  which  shall 
impose  an  obligation  upon  the  State,  ('apt.  Kutz  suggests  that  the  difficulty  may  be 
met  by  treating  all  these  industries  as  tenants  of  the  State  and  granting  the  permit  to 
the  State,  as  it  is  proposed  to  provide  for  the  tenants  of  the  Niagara  Falls  Power  Co. 
and  of  the  Niagara  Falls  Hydraulic  Power  A  Manufacturing  Co.  by  permits  to  those 
companies.  He  recommends  that  a  permit  for  the  diversion  of  358  cubic  feet  per 
second  be  granted  to  the  State  of  New  York. 

The  objections  to  this  course  are  that  the  State  of  New  York  has  not  applied  for  a 
permit  and  might  perhaps  not  be  willing  to  accept  one,  and  it  is  a  somewhat  forced 
interpretation  of  the  law  to  include  the  State  among  the  “individuals,  companies,  or 
corporations  which  are  now  actually  producing  power”  to  whom  the  privilege  must  be 
restricted.  It  is  our  opinion  that  the  person  first  using  the  water  after  it  leaves  the 
canal  should  have  a  permit  directly  from  the  Secretary  of  War,  and  that  persons 
using  it  afterwards  may  be  allowed  to  do  so  without  a  permit.  The  information  nec¬ 
essary  for  the  issuance  of  these  permits  is  not  now  at  hand.  We  have  taken  steps  to 
secure  it,  and  if  the  honorable  Secretary  of  War  concurs  in  the  opinion  just  expressed 
we  propose  to  submit  a  supplementary  report  upon  the  subject  as  soon  as  possible 
hereafter. 

We  accordingly  recommend  that  permits  for  the  diversion  of  water  from  the  Niagara 
River-  be  granted  to  the  Niagara  Falls  Power  Co.  for  8,000  cubic  feet  per  second 
and  the  Niagara  Falls  Hydraulic  Power  &  ^lanufacturing  Co.  for  5,850  cubic  feet  per 
second,  it  being  understood  that  these  are  average  amountsand  that  the  larger  amounts 
occasionally  required  for  sluicing  may  be  accumulated  by  using  generally  smaller 
amounts. 

Ateurs,  very  respectfully,  O.  H.  Ernst,  Chairman. 

George  Clinton,  Member. 

E.  E.  Haskell,  Member. 

Hon.  W.  H.  Taft, 

Secretary  of  War. 


APPENDIX  C. 


‘  Report  upon  the  Form  of  Permit  for  the  Diversion  of  Water  from  the  Erie 

Canal,  by  the  American  Members,  March  5,  1907. 


I  .  International  Waterways  Commission, 

:  Office  of  Chairman,  American  Section, 

,  Washington,  I).  C.,  March  5,  1907. 

Mr.  Secretary:  The  American  members  of  the  International  Waterways  Commis¬ 
sion,  in  their  report  to  you  dated  November  15,  1906,  upon  the  diversion  of  water  at 
Niagara  Falls  on  the  American  side,  in  discussing  the  diversion  of  water  from  the  Erie 
I  Canal,  expressed  the  opinion  that  the  persons  first  using  said  water  should  have  a 


36  INTEKNATIONAL  WATERWAYS  COMMISSION  PROGRESS  REPORT. 


permit  from  the  Secretary  of  War,  and  that  persons  using  it  afterwards  might  be 
allowed  to  do  so  without  a  permit.  They  stated  that  the  information  necessary  for  the 
issuance  of  such  permits  was  not  then  at  hand,  that  they  had  taken  steps  to  procure 
it,  and  that  if  you  concurred  in  the  opinion  just  expressed,  they  would  submit  a  sup¬ 
plementary  report  at  a  later  date.  In  your  opinion  dated  January  18,  1907,  you  ex¬ 
pressed  yourself  as  follows; 

“  The  water  is  used  over  and  over  again.  It  seems  to  me  that  the  permit  might  very 
well  be  granted  to  the  first  user.  As  the  water  is  taken  from  the  canal,  which  is  State 
property,  and  the  interest  and  jurisdiction  of  the  Federal  Government  grow  out  of 
the  indirect  effect  upon  the  level  of  the  lake,  the  permit  should  recite  that  this  does 
not  confer  any  right  upon  a  consumer  of  the  water  to  take  the  water  from  the  canal 
without  authority  and  subject  to  the  conditions  imposed  by  the  canal  authorities, 
but  that  it  is  intended  to  operate,  and  its  operation  is  limited  to  confer,  so  far  as  the 
Federal  Government  is  concerned  and  the  Secretary  of  War  is  authorized,  the  right 
to  take  water  and  to  claim  immunity  from  any  prosecution  or  legal  obligation  under 
the  first  section  of  the  Burton  Act.  I  shall  refer  the  form  of  the  permit  with  these 
instructions  to  the  International  Waterways  Commission  to  prepare  it.” 

The  American  members  now  have  the  honor  to  submit  the  supplementary  report 
accordingly. 

From  Lake  Erie  to  Lockport,  N.  Y.,  the  Erie  Canal  is  practically  upon  the  same 
level  with  the  lake,  but  with  a  slope  sufficient  to  provide  the  necessary  flow.  At 
Lockport  it  drops  about  54  feet  through  a  series  of  locks,  to  what  is  known  as  the  60- 
mile  level.  Water  for  power  pui poses  is  extracted  from  the  canal  above  the  locks, 
and  returned  to  the  canal  below  the  locks.  A  portion  of  this  water  is  there  again 
extracted  for  power  purposes  at  various  points  on  the  60-mile  level,  and  is  not  returned 
to  the  canal,  the  principal  point  being  at  Lockport,  where  various  industries  located 
at  and  below  Lockport  on  Eighteenmile  Creek  use  the  water  in  succession  one  after 
the  other. 

The  figures  given  in  our  former  reports  as  to  the  total  amount  of  water  extracted 
from  the  Erie  Canal  were  given  upon  the  authority  of  officials  of  the  State  of  New 
York.  There  were  no  details  as  to  exactly  what  persons  or  corporations  were  exer¬ 
cising  the  privilege,  what  amount  of  water  each  was  using,  and  by  what  authority  he 
was  using  it,  and  there  was  some  doubt  as  to  whether  all  of  the  water  diverted  above 
the  locks  was  returned  to  the  canal  or  not.  The  commission  through  its  secretary 
has  obtained  this  information  so  far  as  practicable,  particularly  with  reference  to  the 
diversions  at  Lockport,  both  above  and  below  the  locks.  A  map  of  that  locality 
showing  the  location  of  the  various  industries  has  been  constructed.  New  measure¬ 
ments  of  the  flow  of  water  at  that  place  have  been  made,  and  their  results  checked 
with  the  capacity  of  the  machines  actually  served.  A  map  has  been  prepared  also 
showing  the  location  of  the  industries  at  Medina.  Copies  of  these  maps  will  be  for¬ 
warded  if  desired.  The  figures  thus  obtained  are  somewhat  larger  than  those  hereto¬ 
fore  reported  and  will  be  used  here. 

Water  for  power  purposes  is  extracted  from  the  upper  level  at  Lockport  through  a 
raceway  on  the  south  side  and  a  tunnel  on  the  north  side  of  the  canal,  the  amount 
taken  through  the  raceway  being  about  390  cubic  feet  per  second,  and  that  through 
the  tunnel  being  about  610  cubic  feet  per  second,  or  about  1,000  cubic  feet  in  all. 
Both  raceway  and  tunnel  belong  to  the  Lockport  Hydraulic  Co.,  a  corporation  organ¬ 
ized  and  incoiporated  in  1856. 

This  company  derives  its  rights  from  a  lease  made  by  the  canal  commissioners  of 
the  State  of  New  York  in  1826  to  Richard  Kennedy,  of  Lockport,  and  Junius  H.  Hatch, 
of  New  York,  under  the  authoiity  of  a  law  of  the  New  York  Legislature  enacted  in 
1825.  (Ch.  275,  Laws  of  1825,  sec.  3.)  By  this  lease  there  was  granted  to  Messrs. 
Kennedy  and  Hatch,  their  heirs  and  assigns,  “all  the  surplus  waters  which  without 
injury  to  navigation  or  security  of  the  canal  may  be  spared  from  the  canal  at  the  head 
of  the  locks  in  the  village  of  Lockport,”  and  it  was  furthermore  agreed  “that  the  canal 
commissioners  reserve  to  themselves  and  to  the  legislature  the  right  to  limit,  control, 
or  wholly  resume  the  said  waters  and  all  the  rights  granted  by  this  lease  whenever,  in 
the  opinion  of  the  canal  commissioners  or  of  the  legislature,  the  safety  of  the  canal  or 
its  appendages  or  the  necessary  supply  of  water  for  the  navigation  of  the  canal  shall 
render  such  limitation,  control,  or  resumption  necessary.”  The  Lockport  Hydraulic 
Co.  are  the  present  assignees  of  this  lease,  but  they  hold  it  subject  to  the  rights 
granted  by  Messrs.  Kennedy  and  Hatch  in  three  subleases.  The  first  of  these  sub¬ 
leases  is  now  owned  by  Adelaide  C.  Beverly,  Joseph  A.  Ward,  and  Mary  Anna  Evans, 
and  carries  the  right  to  use  75  cubic  feet  per  second,  which  right  is  leased  to  the  Lock- 
port  Gas  &  Electric  Light  Co.  The  second  of  the  subleases  is  now  ow;ned  by  the 
Thompson  Milling  Co.,  and  carries  the  right  to  use  35  cubic  feet  per  second.  The 
third  sublease  is  now  owned  by  the  Franklin  Mills  Co.,  and  carries  the  right  to  use  35 


I 

I 


INTERNATIONAL  WATERWAYS  COMMISSION  PROGRESS  REPORT.  37 


cubic  foot  por  socond.  Each  of  those  companies  is  using  more  water  than  its  prior 
rights  entitle  it  to,  the  surplus  being  obtained  from  the  Lockport  Hydraulic  Co.  The 
first  is  using  22  cubic  feet,  the  second  40  cubic  feet,  and  the  third  20  cubic  feet  per 
second  more  than  its  prior  rights.  They  are  all  located  upon  the  raceway  on  the  south 
side  of  the  canal,  and  may  all  be  considered  as  tenants  of  the  Lockport  Hydraulic  Co. 

Other  concerns  located  u])on  the  raceway,  and  obtaining  water  from  the  Lockport 
Hydraulic  Co.  exclusively  as  tenants,  are: 

Cubic  feet 
per  second. 


'  The  city  of  Lockport,  using .  121 

Grigg  Bros.,  using .  15 

Trevor  Manufacturing  Co.,  using .  7 

Western  Block  Co.,  using .  11 

Boston  &  Lockport  Block  Co.,  using .  11 

Add  for  jrrior  rights .  145 

Add  for  surjrlus  furnished  companies  having  prior  rights .  82 


Total  diverted  through  raceway .  392 


'  The  principal  lessee  taking  water  from  the  tunnel  on  the  north  side  of  the  canal  is 
I"  the  Lockport  Pulp  Co.,  using  about  600  cubic  feet  per  second.  A  small  amount  of 
I  water,  estimated  at  about  G  cubic  feet  per  second,  is  taken  by  the  Pichmond  Manu- 
I  factoring  Co.  also  from  the  tunnel. 

It  thus  appears  that  all  water  diverted  for  power  purposes  from  the  Erie  Canal  at 
1  Lockport  above  the  locks,  and  amounting  to  1,000  cubic  feet  per  second,  is  diverted 
'  by  the  Lockport  Hydraulic  Co.  It  is  believed  that  this  company  is  “now  actually 
producing  ])ower”  within  the  meaning  of  the  law,  acting  as  it  does  through  its  tenants. 

The  water  diverted  here  is  returned  to  the  canal  below  the  locks,  where  a  portion  of 
it  is  required  for  the  service  of  the  canal  to  provide  for  leakage,  evaporation,  etc.,  and 
the  remainder  is  again  diverted  for  power  purposes,  or  is  wasted  through  spillways. 
In  the  level  below  the  locks,  known  as  the  60-mile  level,  the  diversion  for  power  pur¬ 
poses  occurs  at  Lockport  through  Eighteenmile  Creek,  at  Middleport,  at  Medina,  at 
Eagle  Harbor,  at  Albion,  at  Holley,  and  at  other  places.  This  level  receives  water 
other  than  that  from  Lake  Erie  through  Oak  Orchard  Creek  and  the  Genesee  River, 
i  but  it  has  been  impossible  within  the  time  available  to  ascertain  the  exact  amount  of 
these  contributions,  although  they  are  believed  to  be  small  during  the  dry  season. 

The  diversions  for  power  purposes  are,  at  Lockport,  below  the  locfo,  332  cubic  feet, 

I  at  Middleport  30  cubic  feet,  at  Medina  195  cubic  feet,  and  small  amounts  at  other 
places.  Allowing  for  the  contributions  from  tributary  streams,  it  may  be  estimated 
that  the  amount  of  Lake  Erie  water  diverted  from  this  level  for  power  purposes  will 
not  exceed  500  cubic  feet  per  second  during  dry  seasons  and  will  be  very  much  less 
during  wet  seasons. 

As  above  ex])lained,  the  amount  of  Lake  Erie  water  which  reaches  this  level  through 
the  works  of  the  Lockport  Hydraulic  Co.  is  about  1,000  cubic  feet  per  second.  Of 
I  this  a  certain  portion  is  required  for  navigation  purposes  in  the  60-mile  level,  and  under 
the  law  it  may  be  used  without  permission  of  the  Secretary  of  War.  Unfortunately, 
t  it  has  not  been  possible,  within  the  time  available,  to  ascertain  exactly  what  that 
I  amount  is.  Manifestly  it  will  vary  greatly  with  the  seasons  of  the  year  and  with 
‘  different  years.  From  the  best  data  available  it  is  estimated  at  about  500  cubic  feet 
I'  per  second  during  the  average  dry  season.  This  leaves  500  cubic  feet  per  second 
[  diverted  from  the  canal  above  the  locks  for  power  purposes  exclusively,  for  which 
1  permission  of  the.  Secretary  of  War  is  necessary.  The  diversion  of  this  same  water 
f  from  the  canal  below  the  locks  does  not  seem  to  require  his  permission.  The  spirit 
>  and  intent  of  the  law  would  seem  to  be  carried  out  if  a  permit  be  granted  to  the  Lock- 
!  port  Hydraulic  Co.  for  the  diversion  of  500  cubic  feet  per  second,  and  no  other  permits 
,  be  granted. 

^  The  question  arises,  what  will  be  the  effect  upon  the  interests  of  the  Lockport 
Hydraulic  Co.  of  granting  a  permit  to  divert  only  500  cubic  feet  per  second.  It  is 
r  using  1,000  cubic  feet,  of  which  one-half  is  at  times  required  for  navigation  purposes 
\  and  is  returned  to  the  canal  for  that  purpose.  But  not  all  of  that  aniount  is  required 
)  for  navigation  purposes  throughout  the  year.  Leakage  and  evaporation  in  the  60-mile 
I  level  will  be  less  in  the  winter  than  in  the  summer,  and  the  contributions  from  the 
I  tributaries  of  that  level  will  be  greater  during  a  wet  season  than  during  a  dry  one. 
j  The  differences  are  variable  and  can  not  be  specifu'd.  To  enable  the  company  to  use 
i  the  full  1,000  cubic  feet  which  it  is  now  using,  it  will  be  necessary  either  to  assume 
that  the  amount  required  for  navigation  purposes  is  constant,  or  to  grant  it  a  ])ermit 
for  more  than  500  cubic  feet  "jicr  second.  The  objections  to  the  former  alternative 
)  seem  to  us  of  less  importance  than  those  of  the  latter.  It  is  impossible  to  measure  this 


38  INTEENATIONAL  WATEKWAYS  COMMISSION  PKOGEESS  EEPOET. 


water  with  absolute  precision.  All  of  the  numbers  used  are  approximations,  and  it 
must  be  assumed  that  this  was  understood  by  the  lawmaking  power.  Considered  in 
connection  with  the  preservation  of  Niagara  Falls,  which  was  the  object  of  the  law, 
the  total  quantities  involved  are  small,  and  the  difference  in  the  amounts  required 
for  navigation  purposes  at  different  seasons  may  be  said  to  be  insignificant.  We  have 
therefore  assumed  that  the  amount  to  be  allowed  for  navigation  purposes  would  be  500 
cubic  feet  per  second  and  would  be  constant  throughout  the  year.  It  is  desirable 
that  if  a  F ederal  officer  be  charged  with  enforcing  the  terms  of  the  permit  he  be  informed 
of  this  understanding. 

We  inclose  a  form  of  permit  which  we  recommend  for  adoption.  It  has  been  pre¬ 
pared  after  a  public  hearing  in  Buffalo,  at  which  all  parties  in  interest  were  given  an 
opportunity  to  be  heard .  It  grants  500  cubic  feet  per  second  to  the  Lockport  Hydraulic 
Co.,  which  added  to  the  8,600  cubic  feet  allotted  by  the  honorable  Secretary  of  War  to 
the  Niagara  Falls  Power  Co.  and  the  6,500  cubic  feet  allotted  to  the  Niagara  Falls 
Hydraulic  Power  and  Manufacturing  Co.,  make  up  the  total  15,600  cubic  feet  per 
second  available  under  the  law. 

Yours,  very  respectfully, 

0.  H.  Ernst,^ 

Brigadier  General,  U.  S.  Army,  Retired, 

Chairman  of  American  Section  , 

George  Clinton, 

’’Member. 

E.  E.  Haskell, 

Member. 

Hon.  Wm.  H.  Taft, 

Secretary  of  War. 


PROPOSED  FORM  OF  PERMIT  TO  LOCKPORT  HYDRAULIC  CO.  FOR  DIVERSION  OF  WATER 

AT  LOCKPORT,  N.  Y. 

Whereas  by  section  2  of  an  act  of  Congress  approved  June  29, 1906,  entitled  “An  act  for 
the  control  and  regulation  of  the  waters  of  Niagara  River,  for  the  preservation  of  Niag¬ 
ara  Falls,  and  for  other  purposes,  ’  ’  it  is  provided  that  the  Secretary  of  War  is  authorized 
to  grant  permits  for  the  diversion  of  water  in  the  United  States  from  the  Niagara  River 
or  its  tributaries,  for  the  creation  of  power  to  individuals,  companies,  or  corporations 
which  are  now  actually  producing  power  from  the  waters  of  said  river  or  its  tribu¬ 
taries  in  the  State  of  New  York,  or  from  the  Erie  Canal,  to  an  amount  not  exceeding 
in  the  maxunum  8,600  cubic  feet  per  second  to  any  one  individual,  company,  or  cor¬ 
poration,  and  not  exceeding  an  aggregate  amount  of  15,600  cubic  feet  per  second;  and 
Whereas  waters  are  being  diverted  from  the  Erie  Canal  for  the  creation  of  power  by 
the  Lockport  Hydraulic  Co.,  a  corporation  organized  under  the  laws  of  the  State 
of  New  York,  at  Lockport,  N.  Y.,  by  the  abstraction  of  approximately  1,000  cubic 
feet  of  water  per  second  from  above  the  locks  at  said  place,  which  water  is  returned 
to  the  Erie  Canal  below  the  locks,  of  which  total  quantity  500  cubic  feet  is  required 
for  navigation  purposes  and  the  remaining  500  cubic  feet  is  not  required  for  navigation 
purposes;  and 

Whereas  the  said  waters  not  required  for  navigation  purposes,  after  being  returned  to 
the  canal  below  the  locks,  are  again  diverted  from  the  canal  and  are  used  for  power 
purposes  by  various  persons  and  corporations  located  upon  Eighteenmile  Creek,  at 
and  below  Lockport,  and  at  Middleport,  at  Medina,  at  Eagle  Harbor,  at  Albion,  at 
Holley,  and  at  other  places,  and  are  not  returned  to  the  canal,  many  of  the  persons 
or  corporations  on  Eighteenmile  Creek  using  the  same  water  in  succession,  one  after 
the  other;  and 

Whereas  application  has  been  made  to  the  Secretary  of  War  by  the  Lockport  Hydraulic 
Co.  for  permission  to  divert  500  cubic  feet  per  second  from  the  Erie  Canal  at  Lock- 
port  above  the  locks,  and  application  has  been  made  by  various  persons  and 
corporations  to  divert  various  amounts  from  the  Erie  Canal  below  the  locks;  and 
Whereas  the  diversion  of  water  from  the  Erie  Canal  below  the  locks  is  not  properly 
the  diversion  of  water  from  the  Niagara  River  or  its  tributaries,  since  said  water 
diverted  below  the  locks  has  already  been  diverted  from  above  the  locks  and  has 
been  used  for  power  purposes: 

Now,  therefore,  this  is  to  certify  that  the  Secretary  of  War  hereby  grants  permission 
to  the  Lockport  Hydraulic  Co. ,  said  applicant,  to  divert  waters  of  the  Niagara  Riverand 
its  tributaries  from  the  Erie  Canal  at  Lockport,  N.  Y.,  above  the  locks,  for  power  pur¬ 
poses,  not  exceeding  500  cubic  feet  per  second;  it  being  distinctly  understood  that 


INTERNATIONAL  WATERWAYS  COMMISSION  PROGRESS  REPORT.  39 


the  waters  so  diverted  sliall  be  returned  to  the  canal  below  the  loc-ks,  and  that  this 
permit  shall  inure  to  the  benefit  of  all  persons  and  corporations  now  using  said  water 
for  power  purposes,  whether  lessees  of  the  applicant  or  having  the  right  to  be  furnished 
by  it  with  water,  and  including  the  persons  and  corporations  now  diverting  water  as 
aforesaid  from  the  Erie  Canal  at  Eighteenmile  ('reek,  Middleport,  ^Medina,  Eagle 
Harbor,  Albion,  Holley,  and  other  places  on  the  lower  level. 

This  permit  is  granted  upon  condition  and  with  the  understanding  that  it  does  not 
confer  upon  the  applicant  or  said  other  persons  or  corporations  any  authority  whatever 
to  divert  water  from  the  Erie  Canal  without  the  consent  of  the  fState  of  New  Y  ork,  and 
that  this  permit  is  subject  to  any  and  all  regulations  which  may  be  ini  posed  upon  the 
diversion  of  water  from  said  canal  by  said  State;  and,  further,  that  this  permit  is  made 
subject  to  the  jurisdiction  of  said  Stiite  to  alter,  improve,  or  abolish  the  aiid  canal  and 
prevent  the  diversion  of  any  water  whatever  therefrom,  and  this  permit  shall  not  be 
taken  to  impose  any  obligation  whatever  upon  the  said  State  or  the  authorities  thereof. 
It  is  intended  to  confer,  only  so  far  as  the  Federal  Government  is  concerned,  and  the 
Secretary  of  War  is  authorized,  the  right  to  take  the  water  and  to  claim  immunitv 
from  any  prosecution  or  legal  obligation  under  the  first  section  of  the  act  approved 
June  29,  190(5,  above  mentioned. 


APPENDIX  1). 


Report  upon  the  Request  of  the  Niagara  Falls  Hydraulic  Power  A:  Manu- 

P'ACTURING  Co.  THAT  THEY  BE  PROTECTED  IN  ThEIR  RiGHTS  IN  AnY  FrEATL 

Negotiated  with  Great  Britain,  by  the  American  Members,  September 

9, 1970 

International  Waterways  Commission, 

Office  of  Chairman,  American  Section, 

Washington,  D.  C.,  September  9,  1907. 

Sir:  The  American  members  of  the  International  Waterways  Commission  hawe 
the  honor  to  return  herewith  the  letter  dated  July  25,  1907,  addressed  to  yourself  by 
the  honorable  Secretary  of  State,  inclosing  a  letter  dated  June  5,  1907,  which  he  had 
received  from  the  president  of  the  Niagara  Falls  Hydraulic  Power  &  Manufacturing 
Co.,  which  letter,  with  its  inclosures,  was  referred  to  us  for  report. 

The  Niagara  Fhlls  Hydraulic  Power  &  Manufacturing  Co.  represents  that  as  the 
riparian  owner  it  has  the  right  to  divert  water  from  the  Niagara  River  for  the  develop¬ 
ment  of  power,  a  right  which  it  has  been  exercising  for  many  years;  that  in  the  year 
1896  this  right  was  specifically  recognized,  declared,  and  confirmed  by  the  State  of 
New  York,  but  the  quantity  of  water  to  be  diverted  was  at  the  same  time  restricted  to 
the  amount  which  could  be  drawn  through  a  canal  100  feet  wide,  flowing  with  a  depth 
of  14  feet,  an  amount  computed  to  be  9,500  cubic  feet  per  second  under  the  plans 
adopted  for  the  works;  that  its  works  have  been  planned,  and  their  construction 
nearly  completed,  with  a  view  to  the  use  of  this  full  amount,  costing  over  $5,000,000; 
that  under  recent  legislation  of  Congress  it  is  for  the  present  restricted  to  the  diversion 
of  6,500  cubic  feet  per  second,  which  restriction,  if  made  permanent,  will  subject  it 
to  heavy  pecuniary  loss;  and  that  it  is  commonly  understood  that  the  United  States 
and  Great  Britain  are  negotiating,  or  about  to  negotiate,  a  treaty  affecting,  among 
other  things,  the  diversion  of  water  from  the  Niagara  River  for  the  development  of 
power.  The  company  asks  that  its  right  to  divert  water  to  the  extent  of  9,500  cubic 
feet  per  second  be  protected  and  secured  to  it  by  a  suitable  provision  in  any  treaty 
which  may  be  made. 

The  situation  is  fairly  stated  by  the  company,  and  the  request  seems  to  us  reasonable. 
It  is  consistent  with  the  recommendations  contained  in  our  report  of  March  19,  1906, 
which  read  as  follows,  viz; 

“If  the  Falls  are  to  be  preserved  it  must  be  by  mutual  agreement  between  tbe  two 
countries.  As  a  step  in  that  direction  we  recommend  that  legislation  be  enacted 

which  shall  contain  the  following  provisions,  \flz:  .  .  ,  t 

“(a)  The  Secretary  of  War  to  be  authorized  to  gi’ant  permits  for  the  diversion  ot 
28,500  cubic  feet  peV  second,  and  no  more,  from  the  waters  naturally  tributary  to 
Niagara  Falls,  distributed  as  follows;  mbiofeet 


“Niagara  Falls  Hydraulic  Power  &  Manufacturing  Co. 

“Niagara  Falls  Power  (M . .  - . ■ 

“Erie  Canal  or  its  tenants  (in  addition  to  lock  service) 
“Chicago  Drainage  Canal . 


9,500 

8,600 

400 

10,000 


40  IXTEKNATIOXAL  WATERWAYS  COMMISSIOX  PROGRESS  REPORT. 


'‘(b)  All  other  diversion  of  water  which  is  naturally  tributary  to  Niaj^ara  Falls  to 
be  prohibited,  except  such  as  may  be  required  for  domestic  use  or  for  the  ser\dce  of 
locks  in  navigation  canals. 

“(c)  Suitable  penalties  for  \dolation  of  the  law  to  be  prescribed. 

“(d)  The  foregoing  prohibition  to  remain  in  force  two  vears,  and  then  to  become 
the  permanent  law  of  the  land,  if,  in  the  meantime,  the  Canadian  Government  shall 
have  enacted  legislation  prohibiting  the  diversion  of  water  which  is  naturally  tribu¬ 
tary  to  Niagara  Falls  in  excess  of  36,000  cubic  feet  per  second,  not  including  the 
amounts  required  for  domestic  use  or  for  the  service  of  locks  in  na^dgation  canals. 
It  is  assumed,  however,  that  an  understanding  upon  this  subject  would  be  reached 
by  treaty. 

“The  object  of  such  legislation  would  be  to  put  a  stop  to  further  depletion  of  the 
Falls,  and  at  the  same  time  inflict  the  least  possible  injury  upon  the  important  inter¬ 
ests  now  dependent  upon  this  water  power.  The  amount  “to  be  diverted  on  the  Cana¬ 
dian  side  has  been  fixed  with  a  view  to  allowing  to  the  companies  on  that  side  the 
amounts  for  which  they  now  have  works  under  construction,  which  are: 

.  Cubic  feet. 


“Canadian  Niagara  Power  Co . .  9  500 

“Ontario  Power  Co .  \2  QOO 

“Electrical  Development  Co .  ll' 200 

“Niagara  Falls  Park  Railway  Co .  l’  500 

“Welland  Canal  or  its  tenants  (in  addition  to  lock  serWce) .  l’  800 


“One  of  the  effects  of  such  legislation  would  be  to  give  to  Canada  the  advantage  of 
diverting  7,500  cubic  feet  per  second  more  than  is  diverted  in  the  United  States. 
The  advantage  is  more  apparent  than  real,  since  the  power  generated  on  the  Canadian 
side  will  to  a  large  extent  be  transmitted  to  and  used  in  the  United  States.  In  the 
negotiation  of  a  treaty,  however,  the  point  should  be  considered.” 

These  recommendations  were  not  adopted  bv  Congress  without  qualification. 
In  the  act  approved  June  29,  1906,  the  quantity  of  water  authorized  to  be  diverted 
on  the  American  side  at  this  time  is  less  than  that  recommended,  and  it  is  only  under 
certain  contingencies  that  additional  amounts  may  be  diverted  hereafter.  The  act 
is  a  temporary  measure  designed  to  apply  an  immediate  remedy  to  e^dls  of  which  the 
final  remedy  must  be  found  in  a  treaty.  Congress  did  not  finally  deprive  itself  or 
even  the  executive  under  certain  contingencies  of  authority  to  increase  the  amount. 
\\Uether  the  power  to  authorize  the  diversion  of  9,  500  cubic  feet  per  second  by  the 
Niagara  Falls  Hydraulic  Power  &  Manufacturing  Co.  is  ever  to  be  exercised  or  not, 
it  would  seem  wise  for  the  United  States  to  retain  the  power  in  making  its  agreements 
with  Great  Britain. 

Yours,  very  respectfully,  0.  H.  Ernst, 

Bng.  Gen.,  U.  S.  Ai'my,  Retired,  Chairman. 


> 


The  Secretary  of  War, 

Washington,  D.  C. 


George  Clinton, 

Member. 

E.  E.  Haskell, 

Member. 


APPENDIX  E. 

Report  upon  the  Diversion  of  Water  at  the  Whirlpool  Rapids  Below  the 
Falls  in  Niagara  River  by  the  Commission,  March  3,  1908. 

International  Waterways  Commission, 

Office  of  American  Section, 

Buffalo,  N.  Y.,  March  3,  1908. 

Hon.  T.  E.  Burton, 

Chairman  Committee  on  Rivers  and  Harbors, 

House  of  Representatives,  Washington,  D.  C. 

Sir:  In  compliance  with  the  request  contained  in  your  letter  of  the  19th  instant 
the  International  ^Yaterways  Commission  have  the  honor  to  submit  the  following 
remarks  upon  the  bill  H.  R.  25546,  Fifty-ninth  Congress,  second  session,  introduced 
in  the  House  of  Representatives  February  8,  1907,  and  referred  to  the  commission  in 
May  last.  The  bill  authorizes  the  Lower  Niagara  River  Power  &  Water  Supply  Co.  to 
diveit  watei  fioni  the  Niagara  River  below  the  Falls  to  an  amount  not  exceeding 
40,000  cubic  feet  per  second.  ° 


INTERNATIONAL  WATERWAYS  COMMISSION  PRO(iRESS  REPORT.  41 


In  our  report  to  the  two  Governments,  dated  May  3,  19{)(),  we  recommended  that 
the  total  amount  of  water  to  be  diverted  from  the  Niagara  River  above  the  Falls  should 
not  be  allowed  to  exceed  64,500  cubic  feet  per  second,  of  which  28,500  cubic  feet, 
including  10,000  cubic  feet  for  the  Chicago  Drainage  Canal,  was  to  be  diverted  on  the 
American  side  and  36,000  cubic  feet  on  the  Canadian  side.  These  numbers  were 
fixed  by  the  special  conditions  of  the  case  and  are  not  to  be  taken  as  a  guide  in  fixing 
the  amount  of  water  which  may  properly  be  diverted  from  the  Niagara  River  else¬ 
where  or  in  dividing  it  between  the  two  countries.  The  preservation  of  the  rapids 
of  Niagara  River  above  and  below  the  whirlpool  is  in  our  judgment  of  nearly  as  great 
importance  to  the  aesthetic  education  of  the  people  as  is  the  preservation  of  the  Falls 
themselves.  In  both  cases  their  grandeur  is  dependent  u])on  their  volume.  In  this 
case  it  is  not  necessary,  and  in  our  judgment  it  is  not  expedient,  to  allow  the  diversion 
of  an  amount  which  shall  in  any  sense  be  experimental.  It  is  our  opinion  that  about 
40,000  cubic  feet  per  second  can  be  diverted  without  perceptible  injury  to  the  rapids 
and  that  any  amount  greater  than  that  will  approach  the  danger  line  more  and  more 
nearly  according  to  its  volume.  We  therefore  recommend  that  no  more  than  40,000 
cubic  feet  be  diverted  on  both  sides  of  the  river,  taken  together. 

The  general  rule  which  should  govern  the  diversion  of  the  water  between  the  two 
countries  is  that  each  side  should  be  entitled  to  one-half.  In  the  absence  of  a  treaty 
between  the  two  Governments  to  regulate  the  diversion  of  water  from  the  Niagara 
River,  Congress  should  not,  in  our  judgment,  dispose  of  more  than  half  of  the  total; 
that  is,  in  this  case,  20,000  cubic  feet  per  second.  If  no  other  company  is  to  be  pro¬ 
vided  for,  there  seems  to  be  no  objection  to  the  passage  of  the  bill  referred  to  us,  after 
cutting  down  the  quantity  of  water  to  be  allowed  to  20,000  cubic  feet  per  second. 

Very  respectfully, 

O.  H.  Ernst, 


Brig.  Gen.^  U.  S.  Army,  Retired,  Chairman,  American  Section. 

George  Clinton, 
Member,  American  Section. 

E.  E.  Haskell, 
Member,  American  Section. 
Geo.  C.  Gibbons, 
Chairman,  Canadian  Section. 
Wm.  J.  Stewart, 
Member,  Canadian  Section. 


Attest: 

W.  Edward  Wilson, 

Secretary,  American  Section, 


APPENDIX  F. 

Report  upon  the  Conditions  Existing  at  Sault  Ste.  Marie,  with  Rules  for 
the  Control  of  the  Same,  Recommended  by  the  International  Waterways 
Commission. 

Buffalo,  N.  Y.,  May  3,  1906. 

The  honorable  the  Secretary  of  War  of  the  United  States  and  the  honorable 
the  Minister  of  Public  Works  of  Canada. 

The  International  Waterways  Commis.sion  has  the  honor  to  submit  the  following 
report  upon  the  conditions  existing  at  Sault  Ste.  Marie,  with  rules  for  the  control  of 
the  same. 

Upon  the  organization  of  the  International  Waterways  Commission  it  found  the 
most  pressing  matter  coming  within  its  jurisdiction  was  the  regulation  of  the  use  by 
private  corporations  of  the  waters  of  St.  Marys  River  in  connection  with  the  control 
of  those  waters  for  the  protection  of  navigation  at  present  and  in  the  future.  The 
commission,  therefore,  proceeded  to  an  investigation  of  the  local  conditions  by  special 
committee  and  the  study  of  all  data  obtainable.  After  thorough  consideration  of  all 
the  information  which  could  be  obtained,  and  after  hearing  all  parties  interested  in 
the  use  of  the  waters  at  Sault  Ste.  Marie,  including  navigation  interests,  the  commis¬ 
sion  is  satisfied  that  the  rules  recommended  herein,  governing  the  use,  or  interference 
with  the  natural  flow,  of  those  waters,  will  do  entire  justice  to  private  interests,  and, 
at  the  same  time,  fully  protect  commerce  and  navigation. 

The  extent  of  the  commerce  on  the  Great  Lakes  is  well  illustrated  l)y  the  official 
statistics  of  the  amount  of  freight  which  passed  the  locks  at  Sault  Ste.  Marie  during  the 
season  of  navigation  of  1905,  which  amounted  to  more  than  44.000,0(X)  net  tons.  To 


42  INTEENATIOXAL  WATERWAYS  COMMISSION  PROGRESS  REPORT. 


this  should  be  added  the  local  tonnage,  which  is  considerable,  and  the  large  traffic 
between  ports  on  Lakes  Michigan  and  Huron  and  the  East,  making  a  total  lake  traffic 
of  between  50,000,000  and  60,000,000  tons.  The  immense  importance  of  transporta¬ 
tion  by  the  Great  Lakes,  and  the  consequent  necessity  of  protecting  and  facilitating 
it  in  the  interest  of  the  public,  becomes  apparent  when  we  consider  that  the  ability 
to  transport  by  lake  must  have  resulted  during  the  season  of  1905  in  saving  many 
millions  of  dollars.  The  average  rate  for  transportation  of  Lake  Superior  freights  in 
1905  was  $0.00085  per  ton-mile,  while  from  the  best  information  obtainable  the  trans¬ 
portation  rate  by  rail  between  Lake  Superior  points  and  the  East  is  not  less  than 
$0,004  per  ton-mile.  The  ton-mile  saving  over  railroad  transportation  was,  therefore, 
at  least  $0.00315.  The  average  haul  of  the  freight  mentioned  was  833.3  miles.  The 
total  number  of  tons  of  freight  that  parsed  the  Sault  locks  in  1905  was  44,270,680,  and  it 
follows  that  in  this  year  there  was  an  aggregate  saving  through  lake  transportation  on 
Lake  Superior,  through  freight  alone,  of  approximately  $116,000,000.  In  other  words, 
by  transporting  the  Lake  Superior  freight  on  the  Great  Lakes,  $116,000,000  was  saved, 
in  1905,  to  the  producers  of  raw  materials,  the  manufacturer  and  the  consumer,  and 
the  saving  to  manufacturers  has  made  it  possible  for  them  to  supply  the  home  markets 
and  compete  in  those  of  foreign  countries. 

The  growth  of  commerce  upon  the  Great  Lakes  in  the  past  years,  and  its  prospective 
immense  increase  in  the  future,  ha:,  convinced  the  commission  that  steps  should  be 
taken,  not  merely  to  preserve  the  lake  levels,  but  to  retain  absolute  control  of  all 
waters  which  go  to  maintain  those  levels,  and  of  all  lands  which  may  be  useful  or 
necessary,  at  present  or  in  the  future,  to  increase  navigation  facilib'es.  The  Com¬ 
mission  is,  therefore,  decidedly  of  the  opinion  that  the  Governments  of  the  United 
States  and  Canada  should  act  in  unison  in  controlling,  absolutely,  any  and  all  diver¬ 
sions  at  Sault  Ste.  Marie,  so  that  the  waters  of  the  river  may  be  available  at  any  time 
when  needed  for  na^dgation. 

ST.  MARYS  RIVER. 

Our  investigation  of  conditions  at  Sault  Ste.  Marie  developed  the  following  facts; 

The  St.  Marys  Kiver  forms  the  connecting  channel  between  Lake  Superior  and 
Lake  Huron.  In  its  length  of  64  miles  the  total  fall  has  varied,  in  recent  years,  from 
21  to  23  feet;  of  this  total  fall,  from  18  to  20  feet  is  found  in  a  distance  of  three-fourths 
of  a  mile  at  the  rapids  at  Sault  Ste.  Marie.  The  entire  run-off  of  the  Lake  Superior 
drainage  basin,  having  an  area  of  76,100  square  miles,  passes  the  St.  IMarys  River, 
giving  an  average  discharge  of  about  70,000  cubic  feet  of  water  per  second.  As  this 
river  forms  the  only  means  of  water  communication  between  the  important  industries 
of  the  Lake  Superior  regions  and  the  eastern  markets,  the  advisability  of  its  improve¬ 
ment  for  na\dgation  purposes  was  early  recognized.  In  1855  the  first  canal  and’ lock 
capable  of  passing  lake  vessels  was  completed,  at  a  cost  of  about  $1,000,000.  There 
were  two  tandem  locks,  each  70  feet  wide,  350  feet  long,  ha\ing  a  lift  of  about  9  feet 
each,  with  a  depth  of  11 J  feet  of  water  on  the  miter  sills.  The  great  increase  in  the 
number  and  size  of  boats  passing  through  the  St.  Marys  River  necessitated  the  con¬ 
struction,  in  1870,  of  the  Weitzel  Lock.  This  lock,  completed  in  1881,  and  still  in 
service,  is  515  feet  long,  80  feet  wide  in  the  chamber,  and  has  about  14  feet  of  water 
over  the  miter  sills  at  ordinary  low-water  level. 

The  increase  of  lockage  facilities  did  not  accommodate  the  rapid  increase  in  the 
size  and  number  of  vessels  necessitated  by  the  constant  and  great  increase  of  the  com¬ 
merce  which  passed  through  the  river,  and  as  a  result  it  became  necessary  to  construct 
another  lock  on  the  American  side.  Accordingly,  what  is  known  as  the  Poe  Lock, 
was  built.  It  has  a  chamber  800  feet  long,  100  feet  wide,  and  a  depth  of  about  19 
feet  at  ordinary  low  water. 

It  was  supposed  the  Poe  Lock  would  accommodate  the  commerce  of  Lake  Superior 
for  many  years.  But  it,  together  with  the  Weitzel  Lock  and  the  Canadian  Lock,  here¬ 
inafter  described,  has  at  times  proved  inadequate  for  proper  dispatch  of  the  lake  vessels 
passing  the  rapids,  and  it  is  quite  e^ddent  that  in  the  near  future  further  lockage 
facilities  must  be  furnished  to  meet  the  demands  of  commerce. 

On  the  Canadian  side  of  the  river  a  lock  900  feet  long,  60  feet  wide,  and  ha\dng 
about  19  feet  of  water  on  the  miter  sills  at  ordinary  low  water,  has  been  constructed. 
It  was  completed  before  the  Poe  lock.  There  are  several  vessels  now  navigating  the 
lakes  which  this  lock  can  not  accommodate,  their  beam  being  60  feet  or  more. 

The  improvement  of  the  St.  Marys  River  below  the  locks  has  been  almost  continu¬ 
ous,  and  consists  of  the  clearing  of  channels,  and  the  construction  of  the  so-called  “Hay 
Lake  Channel.”  An  available  depth  of  from  17h  to  19  feet,  depending  on  the  stage 
of  water,  has  been  obtained.  At  present  the  United  States  Government  is  engaged 
in  deepening  the  channels  to  a  depth  of  21  feet  at  low  water,  and  in  constmcting  a 
new  channel  through  the  West  Xeebish,  which  will  furnish  an  additional  passage 


INTERNATIONAL  WATERWAYS  COMMISSION  PROGRESS  REPORT.  43 

connecting  Hay  Lake  with  Mud  Lake.  This  channel  will  have  a  least  width  of  300 
feet  and  low-water  depth  of  21  feet,  or  sufficient  to  accommodate  all  vessels  now- 
navigating  the  river.  These  improvements  have  cost  the  Government  of  the  United 
States  about  .$14,000,000,  and  the  government  of  Canada  about  .$5,000, 0(W. 

The  increase  in  the  size  of  vessels  navigating  the  lakes  has  been  rapid.  In  1890, 
lake  vessels  reached  a  length  of  300  feet,  in  1896  400  feet,  in  1902  500  feet,  and  6  vessels 
600  feet  in  length  will  be  put  in  service  during  1906.  In  1904,  there  were  only  40 
boats  in  the  Lake  Superior  trade,  with  a  capacity  of  8,000  tons  or  more,  while  32  addi¬ 
tional  vessels  will  be  in  commission  during  1906,  none  of  which  will  have  a  cargo 
'  capacity  of  less  than  8,000  tons.  The  combined  cargo  capacity  of  these  32  new  boats 
will  be' about  338,000  tons  for  a  single  trip,  and  they  will  constitute  an  addition  of 
about  20  per  cent  to  the  carrjdng  capacity  of  the  fleet  engaged  in  the  transportation 

of  ore  from  Lake  Superior.  i  •  •  u 

The  quantity  of  freight  passing  to  and  from  Lake  Superior  has  doubled  twice  in  the 
past  thirteen  years,  it  being  44,270,680  tons  in  1905,  about  four  times  what  it  was  in 
1892.  The  value  of  the  cargoes  passing  the  Sault  canals  in  1905  was  .$416,965,484, 

L  iron,  including  ore  and  manufactured  iron,  constituting  27  per  cent  of  this  value,  and 

cereals  28  per  cent.  ...  ,  .  , 

It  is  estimated  that  the  present  lockage  system  is  capable  ot  gnung  what  may  be 

•  considered  reasonably  prompt  service  if  not  required  to  pass  more  than  50,000,000 
tons  during  the  season  of  na\dgation,  but  if  called  upon  to  pass  more  than  60,000,000 
tons,  delays,  which  are  not  infrequent  now,  will  become  excessive,  and  cause  great 
financial  loss.  In  \dew  of  the  past  growth  of  this  commerce,  it  is  extremely  hazardous 
to  predict  its  extent  in  the  future,  but  a  conservative  estimate  indicates  that  before 

)  another  lock  can  be  completed  the  limit  of  traffic  for  prompt  service  will  have  been 
past.  In  this  connection  we  would  call  attention  to  the  fact  that  the  largest  classes  of 
boats  existing,  and  now  being  rapidly  built,  are  already  restricted  in  carrying  capacity 
-  on  account  of  deficient  available  depth  of  water,  and  are  subject  to  delays  because  not 

I  more  than  one  of  them  can  be  passed  through  the  largest  lock  at  one  time.  In  addition 

t  to  this  manv  of  the  largest  boats  now  navigating  the  Lakes  are  limited  to  the  ^ise  of 

‘  the  Poe  and  Canadian  locks  on  account  of  their  size.  The  rate  of  increase  on  traffic 

and  in  the  size  of  boats  in  the  future,  judging  from  the  experience  of  the  past  and  the 
I  predictions  of  those  conversant  with  the  subject,  will  make  the  present  lockage  sy^em 

1  inadequate  before  lockage  facilities  can  be  increased.  The  loss  financially  which 

would  result  from  not  furnishing  means  of  passage  around  the  rapids  adequate  to  the 
demands  of  commerce,  or,  in  case  of  accident  to  any  of  the  existing  locks,  from  delay 
until  repairs  could  be  made,  would  be  incalculable.  .  .  , 

The  canal  leading  to  the  American  locks  from  the  upper  river  is  4,200  feet  in  length, 
and  has  an  average  cross  section  of  about  5,000  square  feet.  Its  width  at  the  nar¬ 
rowest  part  is  only  108  feet,  it  being  crossed  at  that  place  by  the  sAving  span  ot  the 
International  Bridge.  The  sides  of  this  canal  are  frequently  lined  with  vessels  await¬ 
ing  down  passage  when  vessels  are  leaving  the  locks  to  pass  into  Lake  Superior.  The 
maneuvering  of  boats  going  in  opposite  directions  in  such  a  narrow  passage  is  ^  ery 
difficult,  and  is  accompanied  by  possibility  of  accident.  The  conditions  are  seriously 
aggravated  by  a  strong  current,  which  occurs  in  the  canal  whenever  the  locks  are  filled . 
Plans  have  been  made  by  the  United  States  Government  for  enlarging  this  canal, 
doubling  its  width  at  the  narrowest  place  and  increasing  the  width  at  other  points. 
This  would  relieve  the  situation  at  present,  but  it  is  quite  apparent  that  provision 
I  should  be  made  for  further  widening,  so  that  when  a  new  lock  shall  have  been  con¬ 
structed  two  or  more  locks  may  be  filled  at  the  same  time  without  creating  a  violent 
current.  This  will  necessitate  the  acquisition  of  more  land  on  the  river  side  than  is 
now  owned  by  the  United  States. 

The  Canadian  canal  is  about  6,000  feet  long,  from  143  to  156  feet  wide,  and  something 
i  over  22  feet  deep.  The  Canadian  lock  above  mentioned  is  at  the  eastern  extremity 
of  this  canal.  The  same  general  considerations  apply  to  this  canal  and  lock  that  we 
^  have  presented  in  connection  with  the  American  canal  and  locks. 

'  WATER-POWER  DEVELOPMENTS. 

The  development  of  the  power  of  the  St.  Marys  rapids  has  been  projected  and  carried 
on  by  practicallv  two  interests:  The  Chandle'r-D unbar  and  allied  interests  and  the 
'  Lake  Superior  Corporation  with  its  subordinate  companies,  the  Lake  Sui)erior  Power 
Co.  and  the  Michigan  Lake  Superior  Power  Co.  .  . ,  ,  i  ^  o 

In  1883  William  Chandler  was  granted  letters  patent  for  a  strip  ot  land  about  3,UW 

*  feet  in  length,  lying  along  the  north  side  of  the  St.  Marys  Falls  Canal,  inljoming  the 

‘  rapids  on  the  American  side  of  the  river.  In  1887  the  Edison  Sault  Light  &  Po^^^r 

Co.  was  organized  f(vr  the  pur])ose  of  developing  water  ])ower  at  this  ]>oint,  and  the 


I 


44  INTERNATIONAL  WATERWAYS  COMMISSION  PROGRESS  REPORT. 


following  year  a  canal,  about  2,200  feet  long,  was  dug  through  this  property,  the  power 
developed  being  used  locally,  largely  for  electric  lighting.  In  1889  a  permit  was  grant  ed 
the  above  company  by  the  Government  of  the  United  States  to  extend  its  tailrace  by 
-connecting  the  lower  end  of  the  embankment  with  island  No.  3,  and  in  1893  a  permit 
was  given  for  joining  islands  Nos.  3  and  4,  which  lay  in  front  of  the  lands  owned  by 
the  United  States,  thus  providing  for  a  tailrace  to  enable  the  companv  to  utilize  a 
somewhat  greater  head  than  the  fall  naturally  existing  in  front  of  the  lands  located  by 
Mr.  Chandler. 

^  In  1892  a  permit  was  granted  by  the  Secretary  of  War  to  the  Edison  Sault  Electric 
Co.,  the  lessee  of  the  Chandler-Dunbar  Co.,  to  build  an  embankment  dam  from  the 
third  pier  of  the  International  Bridge,  extending  downstream.  The  completion  of  this 
dam  or  dike  ])rovided  a  more  commodious  headrace,  and  the  water  power  developed 
has  been  increased  since  that  time  as  local  needs  demanded. 

In  1901  this  permit  was  modified  to  provide  for  the  building  of  a  new  power  house 
in  front  of  the  lands  located  by  Mr.  Chandler,  and  the  construction  of  a  new  tailrace 
outside  of  island  No.  3,  belonging  to  the  United  States,  on  condition  that  the  company 
should  ‘‘abandon  the  tailrace  now  used  on  the  inside  of  island  No.  3  and  relinquish 
to  the  United  States  all  rights  of  the  company  between  said  island  and  the  shore.” 

In  1903  this  permit  was  again  modified  so  as  to  allow  the  company  “to  build  far¬ 
ther  out  into  the  rapids  of  St.  Marys  River,”  to  remove  the  power  house  and  a  portion 
of  the  embankment  dam  now  in  use,  and  to  construct  a  larger  power  house  and  longer 
wall  to  inclose  a  fore  bay,  and  to  construct  a  wider  tailrace.  Work  under  this  last 
permit  was  commenced  in  the  srping  of  1905,  and  is  now  in  progress. 

The  available  head  of  water  on  the  present  works  is  about  9  feet.  The  power  devel¬ 
oped  by  the  turbines  is  about  750  horsepower.  The  amount  of  water  used  in  this 
development  is  about  1,400  cubic  feet  per  second,  including  leakage.  The  natural 
fall  in  the  rapids  in  front  of  the  shore  holdings  of  the  company  was  found  to  be  about 
9  feet  when  it  was  measured  in  the  fall  of  1903. 

The  building'  in  1892  of  the  dike  above  mentioned,  under  permit  of  that  year, 
obstructed  the  flow  through  the  rapids  under  two  spans  of  the  International  Bridge, 
shutting  off  a  water  area  about  1,915  square  feet  in  cross  section. 

M  ork  is  now  progressing  under  the  permits  granted  by  the  War  Department  of  the 
United  States,  and  it  is  expected  that  a  head  of  about  13  feet  will  be  obtained,  furnish¬ 
ing  4,700  mechanical  horsepower  by  the  consumption  of  4,000  second-feet. 

The  interests  constructing  these  works  claim  the  right  to  do  so,  not  only  uncler  the 
permits  granted,  but,  so  far  as  the  occupation  of  the  bed  of  the  rapids  opposite  the 
Chandler  lands  is  concerned,  by  virtue  of  asserted  riparian  rights  appurtenant  to  the 
ownership  of  the  adjacent  shore.  In  a  litigation  now  pending,  brought  by  the  United 
States  against  the  Chandler-Dunbar  Water  Power  Co.  in  the  western  district  of  Michi¬ 
gan,  the  district  court  has  decided  that  the  ownership  of  the  shore  lands  carries  with  it 
the  title  to  the  bed  of  the  river,  inluding  islands  Nos.  1  and  2,  and  from  this  it  follows 
that  the  right  to  erect  structures  in  the  river  to  utilize  the  waters  of  the  river  for  power 
purposes  as  it  flows  past  the  riparian  owners’  land,  exists,  subject  merely  to  the  restric¬ 
tion  that  the  structures  must  not,  directly  or  indirectly,  injuriously  affect  navigation. 

The  Lake  Superior  Corporation,  through  its  subordinate  companies,  the  Lake  Superior 
Power  Co.,  organized  under  the  laws  of  the  Province  of  Ontario,  and  the  Michigan 
Lake  Superior  Power  Co.,  organized  under  the  laws  of  the  State  of  Michigan,  has  con¬ 
structed  canals  on  both  sides  of  the  river,  with  works  for  the  development  of  power. 

On  June  30,  1888,  “the  Sault  Ste.  Marie  Water,  Gas,  and  Light  Co.”  was  incorporated 
on  the  (’anadian  side  under  the  revised  statutes  of  Ontario,  chapter  164.  By  act  of 
1889  the  name  of  the  company  was  changed  to  “The  Ontario  Water,  Light,  and  Power 
Co.,”  and  it  was  given  power  to  build  dams  across  the  inland  channels  or  rapids  of  St. 
Marys  River  or  any  branch  thereof  within  the  Province  of  Ontario,  and  to  construct 
such  other  works  as  might  be  necessarv  to  supply  them  with  the  water  needed  for 
their  operations,  such  rights  to  be  exercised  only  with  the  consent  of  the  Crown  or  the 
individual  affected. 

After  ])artially  completing  a  water  power  canal  this  company  became  financially 
embarrassed  and  w^as  not  able  to  continue  the  undertaking. 

In  1895  Francis  H.  (Tergue  and  his  associates  took  over  the  property  of  the  old  com¬ 
pany,  including  fnpchises  for  supplying  the  town  with  electricdighting,  water,  and 
street-railway  privileges.  At  the  same  time  the  name  of  the  company  was  changed 
to  “The  Lake  Superior  Power  Co.,”  and  in  1896  a  portion  St.  Marys  Island  oppo¬ 
site  the  rapids  was  granted  to  the  company  in  exchange  for  certain  other  lands  in 
the  town  of  Sault  Ste.  Marie,  Ontario.  The  Lake  Su])erior  Power  Co.  also  acquired 
other  lands  in  the  vicinity  north  of  the  Canadian  Ship  Canal,  and  at  once  began  the 
development  of  water  power.  “The  Consolidated  Lake  Superior  (’o.”  was  formed  in 
1901  to  consolidate  and  control  the  interests  of  this  conpxinv.  The  Michigan  Lake 


INTERNATIONAL  WATERWAYS  COMMISSION  PROGRESS  REPORT.  45 


Superior  Power  ('o.,  and  many  olhern,  and  in  1904  it  wat^  reor«:anized  under  the  name 
of  “The  Lake  Superior  ('or])oration.” 

The  canal  of  the  Lake  Su])erior  Power  ('o.  is  about  220  feet  wide  at  the  water  line 
and  12.^  feet  deep  at  the  head  gates,  changing  gradually  to  a  prism  80  feet  wide  and 
15^  feet  dee])  at  the  ])ower  house.  The  })resent  ])lant  is  develo])ing about  11,000  horse¬ 
power  at  the  turbine  shafts.  The  average  amount  of  water  used  has  been  estimated  at 
about  7,000  cubic  feet  per  second,  with  a  maximum  of  8,800  cubic  feet  ])er  second 
when  all  wheels  are  running  at  full  capacity. 

In  building  its  works  this  company  occuj)ied  the  bed  of  a  small  stream,  running  be¬ 
tween  the  islands  on  the  north  side  of  the  river,  having  a  water  cross  section  estimated 
at  1,(508  scjuare  feet.  This  com])any,  with  its  allied  com})any,  the  Michigan  Lake 
Superior  Power  Co.,  to  be  described  below,  has  also  erected  remedial  works  on  the 
Canadian  side  of  the  river  above  the  ninth  and  tenth  spans  of  the  International  Bridge, 
being  the  two  spans  nearest  to  the  (’anadian  shore,  making  it  possil)le  to  nearly  stoj)  the 
flow  of  water  under  those  spans.  The  same  company  has  projected  a  second  canal  of 
much  larger  caj)acity,  work  uj)on  which  has  not  been  begun. 

About  1887,  the  St.  Mary’s  Falls  Water  Power  (’o.  began  excavation  for  a  canal 
through  the  town  of  Sault  Ste.  Marie,  Mich.,  from  a  point  above  the  ship  canal,  to  con¬ 
nect  with  the  river  below  the  locks.  This  company  failed  and  its  right  of  way  was 
purchased  by  the  Michigan  Lake  Superior  Power  Co.,  incorporated  under  the  laws  of 
Michigan,  one  of  the  allied  comj)anies  subseciuently  forming  the  Consolidated  Lake 
Superior  Co. 

The  Michigan  Lake  Superior  Power  Co.  has  constructed  a  canal  over  2  miles  in 
length  with  a  cross-sectional  area  of  about  4,300  square  feet,  extending  from  above  the 
upper  end  of  the  St.  Marys  Falls  Ship  Canal  to  a  point  about  a  mile  below  the  locks, 
where  it  del)Ouches  into  the  lower  river. 

Pursuant  to  the  provisions  of  the  river  and  harbor  act,  approved  June  13,  1902,  the 
Secretary  of  War  of  the  United  States,  under  date  of  December  12,  1902,  granted  the 
Michigan  Lake  Superior  Power  Co.  a  permit  for  the  diversion  of  the  waters  of  the  St. 
Marys  River  through  its  canal,  subject  to  prescril)ed  regulations,  based  upon  the  main¬ 
tenance  of  proper  water  levels,  including  the  erection  of  remedial  works.  The  remedial 
works  have  been  partially  constructed,  but  owing  to  the  fact  that  they  have  not  been 
completed,  and  to  the  fact  that  repairs  to  the  company’s  ])ower  house  and  forebay  are 
needed  the  full  capacity  of  the  canal,  31,200  second-feet,  is  not  used,  8,500  second- 
feet  being  the  estimated  amount  actually  utilized  at  present.  The  remedial  works, 
so  far  as  completed,  are  those  above  mentioned,  partially  covering  the  spans  9  and"  10 
of  the  International  Bridge  on  the  Canadian  side. 

nYDR.\ULIC  CONDITIONS. 

The  head  of  the  canal  at  St.  Marys  rapids  is  situated  about  14  miles  below  Point 
Iroquois,  which  may  be  considered  the  head  of  St.  ^larys  River.  In  this  14  miles 
there  is  a  fall  of  only  about  0.4  foot.  As  this  slope  is  so  slight  it  is  practically  constant 
for  all  stages  of  water  level,  and  the  mean  level  of  Lake  Superior  is  directly  affected  by 
anv  changes  in  level  that  may  ocrur  in  St.  Marys  River  above  the  rapids.  The  lowest 
monthlv  mean  level  of  St.  Marvs  River  above  the  locks,  within  the  past  33  years,  was 
in  March,  1879,  the  level  being  (500.38  feet  above  mean  tide  at  New  York.  Since  that 
y^ear  it  has  never  been  below  (501  feet  during  the  months  of  the  navigation  season,  May 
to  November.  Since  1893,  there  has  been  l)ut  one  month  during  the  navigation  season 
when  the  mean  level  fell  below  601.7  feet.  Since  187(5,  the  mean  level  has  never  been 
above  (503.2  feet. 

Previous  to  the  building  of  the  International  Bridge  in  1887  the  channel  of  St.  Marys 
River  at  the  rapids  consisted  of  the  main  channel  and  four  small  streams  running 
between  the  islands  near  the  Canadian  side.  At  a  water  level  of  601.7  feet,  the  cross- 
sectional  area  of  these  streams  previous  to  obstruction  is  estimated  to  have  been  aliout 
13,452  square  feet  for  the  main  channel  and  2,0(54  square  feet  for  the  small  streams, 
giving  a  total  area  of  section  of  15,516  square  feet.  This  cross  section  has  l)een  ob¬ 
structed  from  time  to  time  1)\'  the  following  works: 

In  1887  the  International  Bridge  was  built  across  the  rapids  near  the  head.  The 
piers  placed  in  the  ra])ids  cut  off  an  area  of  section  of  about  1.133  square  feet.  During 
the  building  of  the  bridge,  and  subsequently,  fills  have  l)een  made  near  the  end  of  the 
bridge,  causing  a  further  obstruction  estimated  at  al)Out  1,139  square  leet,  including 
three  of  the  small  streams  above  mentioned,  and  making  a  total  estimated  area  of 
section  obstructed  by  the  bridge  of  about  2,272  square  feet. 

The  Iniilding,  in  1889.  of  the  canal  sulisequently  purchased  by  the  Lake  Superior 
Power  t'o.  on  the  (^inadian  side,  obstructed  the  fourth  of  the  small  streams  meiitioned 
above,  estimated  to  have  had  an  area  of  1,(503  square  feet.  Subsequently  this  com- 


46  INTEKNATIONAL  WATEKWAYS  COMMISSION  PEOGRESS  REPORT. 

pany,  in  connection  with  the  Michigan  Lake  Superior  Power  Co.,  constructed  remedial 
works  across  spans  9  and  10  of  the  bridge,  span  10  being  completely  closed  and  span  9 
being  closed  by  Stoney  gates,  which  may  be  opened  if  necessary.  The  cross-sectional 
area  of  span  10  so  obstructed  was  about  724  square  feet,  and  of  span  9,  1,649  square  feet, 
giving  a  total  cross  section  of  obstruction  of  2,373  square  feet  for  remedial  works,  or 
3,976  square  feet  if  we  include  the  small  stream  mentioned  above. 

The  dike  built  by  the  Chandler-Dunbar  Water  Power  Co.  in  1892  closed  the  area 
under  the  first  two  spans  of  the  bridge  with  a  total  water  cross  section  of  about  1,915 
square  feet. 

The  total  area  thus  obstructed  l)y  all  works  amounts  to  8,163  square  feet,  or  more 
than  one-half  of  the  original  cross  section.  The  total  area  of  cross  section  obstructed 
previous  to  the  constriu-tion  of  the  remedial  works  was  5,790  square  feet 
.  The  first  effect  of  these  various  obstructions  was  to  reduce  the  discharge  of  the  river, 
although  the  flow  through  the  channels  not  obstructed  was  somewhat  increased.  If  no 
diversion  were  made,  the  discharge  over  the  rapids  being  diminished,  the  mean  w^ater 
level  would  eventually  rise  to  such  a  height  as  to  give  a  discharge  through  the  restricted 
cross  section  equal  to  that  which  would  have  taken  place  through  the  original  cross 
section  at  the  lower  level.  The  elevation  of  the  water  surface  would  then  fluctuate 
about  this  new  higher  mean  level -miK'h  the  same  as  it  did  before  about  the  lower  mean 
level.  The  decrease  in  discharge,  due  to  the  obstructions  mentioned  above  other 
than  the  remedial  works,  may  be  roughly  estimated  as  follows  for  stage  601.7  feet; 

Second-feet. 


Flow  intercepted  by  International  Bridge  piers  and  fills .  7,  000 

Chandler-Dunbar  Co .  7,  500 

Works  of  Lake  Superior  Power  Co .  4,  500 


Total. .  19,000 


Since  to  determine  the  discharge  of  the  river  by  oliservations  from  the  International 
Bridge,  the  section  upon  which  most  of  the  observations  for  discharge  have  been  made, 
involves  estimating  the  amount  of  water  used  by  the  locks  and  the  several  power  com¬ 
panies,  in  order  to  arrive  at  the  total  discharge,  the  results  of  the  discharge  measure¬ 
ments  are  not  always  accordant.  These  observations  for  discharge  have  not  extended 
over  as  wide  a  range  of  level  as  could  be  desired  to  give  a  good  determination  of  the 
rate  of  change  in  discharge  for  change  in  stage.  From  a  consideration  of  the  published 
results,  however,  it  appears  that  previous  to  the  placing  of  the  remedial  works  at  spans 
9  and  10  of  the  bridge,  that  portion  of  the  discharge  of  the  river  passing  the  rapids  alone 
was  66,500  second-feet,  at  elevation  601.7  feet,  and  80,400  second-feet,  at  elevation 
602.7  feet.  If  these  discharges  are  correct^  a  rise  in  the  water  surface  of  1  foot  corre¬ 
sponds  to  an  increase  in  discharge  of  13,900  second-feet  and  the  effect  of  placing 
obstructions  cutting  off  19,000  second-feet  would  therefore  be  to  eventually  raise  the 
mean  lake  level  approximately  1.4  feet. 

Only  a  portion,  perhaps  not  more  than  half,  of  this  obstruction  has  actually  been 
effective,  for  the  reason  that  it  takes  place  slowly  and  that  the  obstruction  has  not  been 
complete  since  the  channels  have  been  replaced  by^  the  power  canals  through  which 
the  water  is  allowed  to  pass. 

As  the  result  of  observations  of  discharge  made  in  1899  and  1902  by  the  officers  of  the 
United  States  Lake  Survey,  equations  were  determined  representing  the  flow  in  the 
rapids,  first,  in  spans  3  to  10,  inclusive,  or  previous  to  the  construction  of  the  remedial 
works,  above  spans  9  and  10,  on  the  Canadian  side  of  the  river,  and  second,  in  spans 
3  to  8,  inclusive,  or  after  the  remedial  works  were  in  place.  From  these  equations  it 
appears  that  previous  to  the  placing  of  the  remedial  works  the  discharge  at  601.7  feet 
was  66,485  cubic  feet  per  second,  and  that  with  the  remedial  works  in  place,  the  dis¬ 
charge  at  this  stage  is  56,880  cubic  feet  per  second,  giving  a  diminished  discharge,  due 
to  the  placing  of  the  remedial  works  of  9,605  cubic  feet  per  second  at -this  stage. 

The  total  flow  stopped  by  the  obstructions  placed  by  the  various  companies  may 
then  be  summarized  as  follows  for  stage  601.7  feet: 


Second-feet. 

Bridge .  7,  000 

Chandler-Dunbar  Water  Power  Co . .  7,  500 

Lake  Superior  &  Michigan  Lake  Superior  Co .  14, 100 


Total .  28,600 

The  present  uses  of  water  are  estimated  to  be  as  follows: 

Second-feet. 

Government  canals .  600 

Chandler-Dunbar  Water  Power  Co . . .  1, 400 

Lake  Superior  &  Michigan  Lake  Superior  Power  Co .  15,  500 


Total 


17, 500 


intp:rxatioxal  waterways  commissiox  progress  report.  47 


Previous  to  the  placing  of  the  remedial  works  of  the  Lake  Superior  ))ower  companies 
'  above  spans  9  and  10  of  the  International  Bridge  the  discharge  of  the  river  at  elevation 
j  601.2  was  probably  about  61,000  second-feet.  Although  the  discharge  may  have 
fallen  below  tliLs  figure  for  a  few  months  in  years  of  low  water,  it  may  be  taken  as  the 
I  ordinary  low-water  discharge.  Of  this  amount  not  less  than  4,000  second-feet  should 
be  reserved  for  the  use  of  locks  and  the  passage  of  logs.  The  Michigan  Lake  Su])erior 
Power  Company  has  a  canal  designed  to  take  a  maximum  of  31,200  second-feet;  the 
I  Chandler-Dunbar  Water  Power  Co.  has  works  under  construction  designed  to  use 

I  4,000  second-feet,  and  contem])lates  still  further  development.  The  Lake  Su])erior 

Power  Company’s  ])re8ent  works  are  suthcient  to  use  at  least  9,000  second-feet,  and 
,  further  develo})ment  is  contemj^lated,  ])resumably  to  the  extent  of  using  one-half  of 
'  the  surplus  waters  of  the  river. 

It  is  ap})arent,  therefore,  that  the  actual  ])re8ent  use  of  water  for  power  purposes  is 
nearly  equal  to  the  amount  of  flow  obstructed  by  the  works  of  all  the  power  develop¬ 
ment  companies  (“onsidered  as  a  unit,  and  it  is  clear  that  the  amount  of  water  required 
for  the  proposed  additions  to  ])resent  ])ower  developments  is  so  great  as  to  call  for 
complete  control  of  such  extensions  by  an  international  commission. 

'  At  present  the  duty  of  maintaining  the  water  level  above  the  rapids  rests  upon  the 
Michigan  Lake  Su])erior  Power  Co.;" the  act  of  Congress  a])proved  June  13,  1902,  au¬ 
thorizing  this  company  to  divert  water  from  St.  Marys  River,  with  the  consent  of  the 
Secretary  of  War  and  the  Chief  of  Engineers,  specifically  ])rovides  that  the  level  of 
Lake  Sujterior  shall  be  maintained  at  the  ex])ense,  if  need  be,  of  the  works  of  this 
company.  With  the  knowledge  that  plans  for  enlarging  the  works  of  the  ])Ower  com¬ 
panies  were  projected.  Congress,  in  the  same  act,  provided  for  an  investigation  of  the 
j  conditions  with  a  view  to  an  agreement  looking  to  international  control  and  regula¬ 
tion.  The  commission  has  used  the  rules  and  regulations  under  which  the  Michigan 
Lake  Superior  Power  Co.  was  permitted  by  the  Secretary  of  War  of  the  United  States 
to  divert  the  waters  of  the  St.  Marys  River  as  a  basis  for  the  new  rules  now  recom¬ 
mended,  adapting  them  to  the  wider  application  now  necessary. 

RECOMMENDATIONS. 

I 

The  commission  would  respectfully  recommend: 

1.  That  no  permits  shall  be  granted  for  the  use  of  the  waters  of  the  St.  Marys  River, 

I  or  for  the  erection  of  structures  in,  under,  or  over,  or  the  occupation  in  any  manner  of 
the  said  waters  until  plans  have  been  submitted  to  the  commission  for  its  investigation 
and  recommendation;  and  the  use  of  the  waters  under  such  permits  shall  not  be  allowed 
except  upon  compliance  with  the  rules  hereinafter  recommended. 

2.  The  commission  further  recommends  that  no  grants,  permits,  or  concessions 
should  be  made  which,  directly  or  by  operation  of  law,  may  in  any  manner  affect  the 

,  right  of  the  United  States  or  of  Canada  to  control  the  bed  of  the  St.  Marys  River 
below  high-water  mark,  and  especially  that  none  should  be  made  which,  legally  or 
equitably,  may  be  the  means  of  adding  to  the  expense  of  acquiring  lands  or  rights  for 
the  purpose  of  making  improvements  in  aid  of  navigation,  or  which  may_  give  an 
equitable  right  to  compensation  in  case  of  the  removal  of  structures  in  said  river. 

3.  That  steps  be  taken  to  increase  the  lockage  facilities  at  the  Sault  Ste.  Mane 
without  unnecessary  delay, 

4.  That  the  Governments  of  the  United  States  and  Canada  reserve  all  water  neces¬ 

sary  for  navigation  ])urposes,  at  present  or  in  the  future,  and  the  surplus  shall  be 
divided  equally  between  the  two  countries  for  power  purposes.  ^  i  •  i, 

5.  As  the  commission  regards  the  interests  of  the  United  States  and  Canada  in  the 
preservation  of  the  lake  levels  and  in  the  improvement  of  the  channels  and  the  con¬ 
servation  of  the  water  supply  for  purposes  of  navigation  as  identical  and  as  incapable 
of  efficient  protection  without  joint  and  harmonious  action  on  the  part  of  the  two 
Governments,  it  recommends  that  the  rules  hereinafter  set  forth  be  adopted,  and  that 
a  joint  commission  be  created  to  supervise  their  enforcement,  or  that  such  powers  be 
vested  in  the  existing  International  Waterways  C’ommission,  subject  to  such  restric¬ 
tions  and  reservations  as  may  be  deemed  advisable. 

The  commission  has  adopted  unanimously  the  following  resolution:  ,  i  tt  • 

^'Resolved,  That  this  commission  recomniends  to  the  Secretary  of  War  of  the  United 
States  and  the  Minister  of  Public  Works  of  Canada  the  following  rules  to  govern  the 

use  of  water  at  the  Sault  Ste.  Marie:  o  nr  -o* 

“1.  No  person  shall  place  any  structure  in,  over,  or  under  the  St.  Marys  River,  nor 
shall  any  person  place  any  obstruction  in  said  river,  or  make  any  excavation  in  the 
bed  thereof,  or  divert  water  therefrom,  until  plans  for  the  work  shall  have  been  sub¬ 
mitted  to  an  international  waterways  commission,  nor  until  consent  shall  have  been 
by  th©  SGcrGtery  of  Wsir  of  tho  Unitod  StotGs  and  tho  Ministor  of  Public  \Vorks 
of  Canada.  All  work  must  he  donG  in  accordancG  with  plans  appro vGd  by  such  com- 


48  INTEKNATIONAL  WATERWAYS  COMMISSION  PROGRESS  REPORT. 


mission,  and  subject  to  its  supervision  and  inspection;  and  no  water  shall  be  used  or 
diverted  until  the  completed  work  shall  have  been  approved  by  the  commission. 

“2.  Persons  now  using  or  diverting  the  waters  of  St.  Marys  River  for  power  purposes 
shall  forthwith  submit  complete  plans  of  all  their  works  existing  and  proposed,  and 
until  such  plans  have  been  approved  by  the  commission  they  shall  not  use  or  divert 
the  waters  of  said  river  in  excess  of  the  amount  now  actually  used  or  diverted  by  them. 

“3.  Plans  for  work  contemplating  the  use  or  diversion  of  water  must  include  such 
remedial  and  controlling  works  as  may  be  necessary  to  maintain  levels.  Such  works 
■  must  provide  for  (1 )  compensation  equal  to  the  amount  of  water  to  be  used  or  diverted, 
(2)  complete  stoppage  of  flow  through  canals  and  works,  (3)  passage  of  the  amount  of 
water  naturally  flowing  through  the  section  occupied  by  the  remedial  works,  (4) 
passage  of  logs  over  the  rapids. 

“4.  The  level  of  St.  Marys  River  above  the  rapids,  shall  be  maintained  between  the 
elevations  601.7  and  603.2  feet  above  mean  tide  at  New  York,  according  to  the  system 
of  levels  established  by  the  United  States  Government  in  1903,  and  defined  by  a  bench 
mark  on  the  coping  of  the  Weitzel  Lock  at  Sault  Ste.  Marie,  Mich.,  the  elevation  of 
which  is  606.069  feet.  The  approval  of  plans  of  works  by  the  commission  and  the 
consent  of  the  Secretary  of  War  and  Minister  of  Public  Works  to  construct  works  or  to 
use  or  divert  water  shall  in  no  way  relieve  the  owners  and  persons  operating  such 
works  from  the  duty  of  maintaining  said  level. 

“5.  Nothing  herein  contained  shall  be  held  to  affect  any  existing  riparian  or  other 
rights,  or  the  existing  remedies  therefor,  or  any  action  at  law  or  in  equity  now  pending. 
All  remedies  herein  provided  shall  be  cumulative  and  shall  be  without  prejudice  to 
any  other  remedies  for  failure  of  persons  operating  under  permits  to  maintain  the 
levels  for  navigation  purposes.  Nothing  herein  contained  shall  be  held  to  affect  the 
exercise  of  the  right  of  any  executive  officer  of  either  the  United  States  or  Canada, 
acting  under  the  laws  of  his  respective  country,  to  prevent  the  placing  or  to  cause 
the  removal  of  any  obstructions  in  St.  iMarys  River,  or  to  otherwise  preserve  or  restore 
the  navigability  of  any  part  thereof. 

“6.  Persons  using  or  diverting  the  waters  of  St.  Marys  River  shall  operate  under  the 
following  regulations ; 

“(a)  The  general  superintendent  of  St.  Marys  Fall  Canal,  under  the  orders  of  the 
engineer  officer  in  charge  on  the  American  side  and  a  resident  officer  appointed  by  the 
Canadian  Government  on  the  Canadian  side,  shall  form  a  board  whose  duty  it  shall  be 
to  see  that  these  regulations,  and  any  others  that  may  hereafter  be  made  by  proper 
authority,  are  duly  obeyed.  The  officers  of  this  board  and  their  deputies  shall  have 
access  to  all  the  power  works  at  any  time,  and  all  said  power  works,  which  term  includes 
canals,  escape  valves  at  the  power  houses,  head  gates,  and  remedial  works,  shall  be 
operated  in  accordance  with  the  orders  of  the  said  board,  and  said  board  shall  have 
power  to  assume  entire  control  of  said  works,  or  any  of  them,  whenever  it  considers 
such  action  necessary  in  the  interests  of  navigation . 

‘'(b)  Should  the  monthly  mean  level  fall  below  601.7  feet  for  any  calendar  month, 
the  flow  through  the  power  works  shall  be  reduced  to  such  an  extent  as  to  restore  the 
monthly  mean  level  to  601.7  feet.  Should  the  monthly  mean  level  remain  below  601.7 
feet  for  six  consecutive  months,  all  flow  through  the  power  works  shall  be  stopped  until 
the  monthly  mean  level  shall  again  be  above  601.7  feet.  Should  the  monthly  mean 
level  fall  below  601.2  feet,  all  flow  shall  likewise  be  stopped  until  the  monthly  mean 
level  shall  again  be  above  601.2  feet. 

“(c)  Should  the  monthly  mean  level  rise  above  603.2  feet  the  flow  through  the 
power  canals  and  remedial  works  shall  be  increased  to  their  maximum  capacity, 
and  shall  so  continue  until  the  monthly  mean  level  shall  be  less  than  603.2  feet. 

“(d)  Should  the  power  canals,  remedial  or  controlling  works  be  found  not  to  be  of 
the  capacity  to  produce  the  regulation  required,  the  persons  using  the  water  shall 
alter  their  works  at  their  own  expense  as  soon  as  possible,  so  as  to  allow  more  to  flow,  in 
a  manner  approved  by  an  international  commission. 

“(e)  Should  currents  detrimental  to  navigation  be  developed  by  the  operation  of 
any  power  works  the  persons  operating  such  works  shall  alter  them  or  construct  such 
other  works  as  an  international  commission  may  consider  necessary  to  remedy  the 
evil,  all  in  a  manner  to  be  approved  by  said  commission. 

“(f)  The  board  mentioned  in  regulation  (a)  shall  have  power  to  determine  whether 
the  conditions  mentioned  in  any  of  these  regulations  have  arisen  to  call  for  the  applica¬ 
tion  of  said  regulation,  and  its  determination  shall  be  final;  and  said  board  shall  have 
power  to  apply  to  any  power  works  such  special  regulations  as  they  may  deem  neces¬ 
sary  in  the  interests  of  navigation. 

“(g)  If  remedial  works  be  used  for  the  passage  of  logs  or  rafts,  the  gates  must  be 
operated  at  the  expense  of  the  persons  owning  or  operating  the  works  whenever 
needed. 


INTERNATIONAL  WATERWAYS  COMMISSION  PROGRESS  REPORT.  49 


“7.  Wherever  powers  of  officers  are  mentioned  in  these  rules  it  is  understood 
that  the  Governments  of  the  United  States  and  Canada  reserve  the  right  to  vest  such 
powers  in,  and  confer  others  upon,  other  officers  or  the  international  commission. 

“8,  It  is  further  understood  that  the  Governments  of  the  United  States  and  Canada 
reserve  the  right  to  amend,  add  to,  or  abolish  these  rules  or  any  of  them  by  joint 
action,  and  that  they  may  vest  the  power  so  to  do  in  the  international  commission. 

“9.  In  the  event  of  any  person  subject  to  these  regulations  refusing  or  neglecting 
to  obey,  abide  by,  or  conform  to  any  ruling,  direction,  or  order  of  the  commission,  or 
of  the  board  mentioned  in  regulation  (a),  such  commission  or  board  may,  through 
their  officers,  servants,  or  agents,  at  once  shut  off  the  supply  of  water  to  such  person, 
or  to  take  such  steps  to  compel  compliance  with  such  ruling,  direction,  or  order  as  the 
commission  or  said  board  may  deem  proper. 

“10.  Persons  owning  or  operating  power  canals  or  works  shall  not  be  entitled  to 
.  damages  or  compensation  from  the  Governments  of  the  United  States  or  Canada  in 
any  case  whatsoever,  for  any  act  or  acts  done  by  them  or  either  of  them,  or  by  their 
,  officers  or  agents  at  any  time,  in  executing  or  enforcing  these  rules,  or  in  exercising 
^  .the  right  to  control  or  suspend  the  flow  of  water  through  canals  or  remedial  works,  or 
I  both,  or  in  revoking  or  annulling  any  permits  of  grants  which  may  have  been  or  shall 
;  hereafter  be  issued  or  made  to  such  persons. 

“11.  For  the  purpose  of  construing  these  rules  the  word  ‘p^i’son’  or  ‘persons,’ 
shall  be  taken  as  including  natural  persons,  corporations,  associations,  and  partnerships 
whenever  they  are  used,  but  shall  include  the  Government  of  the  United  States  or 
that  of  Canada. 

‘  George  C.  Gibbons, 

i  .  Chairman,  Canadian  Section. 

i  ■  W.  F.  King, 

I  Commissioner. 

*  Louis  Coste, 

t ,  Commissioner. 

!  ■'  Thomas  Cote, 

Secretary ,  Canadian  Section. 

'  0.  H.  Ernst, 

Colonel,  Corps  of  Engineers,  U.  S.  Army,  Chairman  of  American  Section. 

>  George  Clinton, 

! '  Commissioner. 

Geo.  Y.  Wisner, 

1 ;  Commissioner. 

.L  L.  C.  Sabin, 

^  Secretary,  American  Section. 

The  honorable  the  Secretary  of  War  of  the  United  States,  and 
,  ^  The  honorable  the  Minister  of  Public  Works  of  Canada. 


APPENDIX  G. 

"Report  upon  the  Application  of  the  Minnesota  Canal  &  Power  Co.  for  Per¬ 
mission  TO  Divert  Certain  Waters  in  Minnesota  from  their  Natural  Flow, 
which  is  into  Boundary  Waters,  by  the  Commission,  November  15,  1906. 

Buffalo,  N,  Y.,  November  15,  1906. 

The  International  Waterways  Commission  would  respectfully  report  that  it  has 
I  investigated  as  fully  as  existing  data  would  permit  the  matters  involved  in  the  ap¬ 
plications  of  the  Minnesota  Canal  &  Power  Co.,  of  Duluth,  Minn.,  for  the  approval  of 
*  its  plans  and  structures  to  divert  water  from  the  Birch  Lake  drainage  basin  in  St. 
Louis  and  Lake  Counties,  Minn.,  and  the  use  of  certain  public  lands  of  the  United 
States  in  said  counties,  and  that  it  has  heard  the  parties  interested  in  said  applications 
and  those  opposed.  The  physical  data,  outside  of  those  furnished  by  the  applicant, 
are  few  and  not  sufficient  to  show  all  the  conditions  existing.  The  applicant,  how¬ 
ever,  has  furnished  maps  and  data  which  are  not  seriously  contested  by  those  opposing 
the  applications,  and  they  are  considered  sufficient  to  warrant  the  conclusions  at 
which  the  commission  has  arrived  as  set  forth  in  this  report. 

The  application  to  the  Secretary  of  War  of  the  United  States  is  for  the  approval  of 
certain  plans  for  structures  which  will  impound  the  waters  of  the  Birch  Lake  drainage 
basin,  and  divert  them  from  that  basin  to  Lake  Superior,  and  for  authorization  to 
erect  such  structures  and  divert  the  waters. 


S.  Doc.  959-62-3 - 4 


50  INTERNATIONAL  WATERWAYS  COMMISSION  PROGRESS  REPORT. 


The  application  to  the  Department  of  the  Interior  is  for  permission  to  use  certain 
public  lands,  by  flowage  and  otherwise,  for  the  purpose  of  creating  electrical  power 
at  Duluth  on  Lake  Superior.  The  Minnesota  Canal  &  Power  Co.  proposes  to  divert 
water  from  the  Birch  Lake  drainage  basin,  which  is  naturally  tributary  to  the  Rainy 
River,  Lake  of  the  Woods,  Winnipeg  River  and  Lake,  and  finally  to  Hudson  Bay. 
The  quantity  of  water  to  be  so  diverted  is  mentioned  in  some  of  the  documents  before 
the  Commission  as  600  cubic  feet  per  second,  but  the  company  does  not  propose  to 
limit  itself  to  that  amount  if  it  be  found,  after  the  completion  of  its  works,  as  now 
planned,  that  a  greater  quantity  can  be  obtained  without  injury  to  navigation  in¬ 
terests.  With  600  cubic  feet  per  second  about  30,000  electrical  horsepower  can  be 
generated  for  use  in  Duluth  and  the  mining  regions  of  Minnesota. 

The  subject  matter  under  consideration  was  called  to  the  attention  of  the  Canadian 
section  of  this  commission  by  the  honorable  the  secretary  of  state  for  Canada,  in  a 
letter  dated  January  6,  1905,  in  which,  among  other  things,  in  stating  the  subjects 
that  might  come  before  the  commission  for  its  consideration,  be  mentions  “the  pro¬ 
posed  diversion  southward  by  the  Minnesota  Canal  &  Power  Co.,  of  Duluth,  of  certain 
waters  in  the  State  of  Minnesota,  that  now  flow  north  into  the  Rainy  River  and  the 
Lake  of  the  Woods.”  The  same  matter  was  called  to  the  attention  of  the  American 
section  by  a  letter  from  the  Minnesota  Canal  &  Power  Co.,  dated  March  10,  1905,  ad¬ 
dressed  to  the  chairman,  in  which  the  company  referred  to  the  application  of  the  power 
company  pending  in  the  Interior  Department,  stating  that  it  was  advised  that  one 
of  the  subjects  which  would  come  before  the  commission  for  consideration  is  the 
proposed  diversion  southward  of  certain  waters  in  the  State  of  Minnesota  that  now  flow 
north  into  the  Rainy  River  and  the  Lake  of  the  Woods,  and  requesting  that  the  matter 
be  brought  before  the  commission  at  the  earliest  practicable  moment. 

At  a  meeting  of  the  commission  held  June  15,  1905,  this  matter  was  laid  over  for  the 
reason  that  other  and  more  pressing  matters  required  the  attention  of  the  commission 
and  for  the  further  reason  that  the  jurisdiction  of  the  commission  over  any  waters 
except  those  in  or  tributary  to  the  Great  Lakes  and  the  St.  Lawrence  River  had  been 
placed  in  doubt  by  the  construction  given  by  the  Government  of  the  United  States  to 
the  act  of  Congress  under  which  the  commission  was  organized.  The  subject  matter 
having  now  been  referred  to  the  commission  by  the  honorable  the  Secretary  of  War  of 
the  United  States  and  the  honorable  the  secretary  of  state  for  Canada,  we  regard  our 
jurisdiction  as  fullv  established. 

The  Minnesota  Canal  &  Power  Co.  is  a  corporation  organized  under  the  laws  of  the 
State  of  Minnesota  with  power  to  erect  the  works  for  the  construction  of  which  authori¬ 
zation  is  sought  from  the  War  Department  of  the  United  States,  and  with  certain 
powers  of  eminent  domain.  It  has  heretofore  brought  proceedings  in  the  district 
courts  of  ^Minnesota  for  the  purpose  of  putting  into  exercise  the  right  of  eminent  domain 
and  of  condemning  property  and  rights  of  persons  who  may  be  affected  by  the  carrying 
out  of  its  plans.  The  result  of  these  proceedings  has  been  an  appeal  to  the  supreme 
court  of  Minnesota,  which  has  decided  that  the  waters  which  would  be  affected  by 
the  carrying  out  of  the  power  company’s  plans  are  public  navigable  waters,  and 
that  the  statutes  under  which  the  comp'an'jr'is'' organized  do  not,  as  an  incident^  to 
the  construction  of  a  canal  and  the  creating  of  a  water  power,  authorize  a  corporation 
to  withdraw  and  divert  waters  from  public  navigable  lakes  and  streams  to  such  an 
extent  as  to  interfere  with  present  or  future  navigation,^  and  by  means  of  canals  carry 
it  over  a  divide  and  discharge  it  into  a  different  drainage  area,  thus  permanently 
withdrawing  it  from  its  natural  course.  This  decision  resulted  in  holding  that  the 
proceedings  taken  by  the  company  to  condemn  property  and  rights  of  individuals  must 

be  dismissed,  .  . 

The  court  says  that  “in  view  of  the  presumption  in  favor  of  the  rights  of  the  indi¬ 
vidual,  the  State  and  Federal  prohibition  against  the  obstruction  of  navigable  waters, 
the  rule  that  the  rights  of  the  State  in  such  waters  are  sovereign  and  not  proprietary, 
that  they  are  held  by  the  public  as  highways  and  can  not  be  alienable,  the  possible 
effect  upon  the  rights  of  riparian  proprietors  in  the  Province  of  Ontario,  the  fact 
that  the  doctrine  of  the  appropriation  of  waters  adopted  in  some  of  the  Western 
States  does  not  prevail  in  Minnesota  and  is  not  recognized  by  the  conventional 
law  of  nations,  the  treaty  relations  between  the  United  States  and  Great  Britain  with 
reference  to  the  boundary  Waters  between  the  United  States  and  Canada,  and  that 
the  taking  of  the  waters  would  interfere  with  streams  and  lakes  which  are  already 
devoted  to  public  uses,  which  can  only  be  done  under  express  statutory  authority, 
it  is  constrained  to  hold  that  the  appellant  is  not  authorized  to  condemn  the  interests 
sought  to  be  condemned.  The  applicant,  assuming  that  the  decision  of  the  supreme 
court  adverse  to  it  would  be  adhered  to  only  upon  the  ground  that  its  petition  included 
private  as  well  as  public  uses,  has  filed  another  petition  making  the  purposes  for 
which  condemnation  will  be  sought  wholly  public  and  has  begun  new  condemnation 
proceedings. 


INTERNATIONAL  WATERWAYS  COMMISSION  PROGRESS  REPORT.  51 


Objections  and  protests  have  ])een  filed  with  the  coinniission  on  behalf  of  various 
interests  o])posed  to  the  <>:rantin<>;  of  (he  (’anal  A  Power  ('o.’s  ap])lication.  These 
objections  may  be  divided  into  two  classes:  First,  objections  made  by  parties  claiming 
that  they  have  interests  and  ])roperty  rights  in  the  State  of  Minnesota  which  will  be 
affected  by  the  carrying  out  of  the  Canal  ct  Power  Co.’s  ])lans,  and,  second,  objections 
made  by  ])arties  having  interests  in  the  boundary  waters  in  the  State  of  Minnesota 
and  in  Canada  which  it  is  claimed  will  be  affected  by  the  ])roposed  diversion  of  the 
waters  of  the  Birch  Lake  drainage  area. 

The  first  class  of  objectors  includes  Frederick  B.  Spelman,  who  claims  to  be  the 
owner  in  fee  of  valuable  water  rights  on  Birch  River;  the  Northeastern  Minnesota 
Power  Co.,  a  corporation  organized  under  the  laws  of  the  State  of  Minncwsota  for  the 
purj)ose  of  generating  electricity  by  water  ])ower,  and  distributing  and  selling  the 
same,  which  claims  that  it  is  the  owner  of  certain  real  estate  in  Lake  County,  ^linn., 
bordering  upon  KawLdiiwi  Falls;  the  St.  ('roix  laimber  Co.  and  the  Fall  Lake  Boom 
Co.,  corporations  organized  under  the  laws  of  the  State  of  Minnesota,  which,  acting 
together,  are  engaged  in  the  manufacture  of  lumber  in  the  State  of  Minnesota  and 
using,  for  the  pur])ose  of  bringing  logs  to  the  mills  of  the  lumber  company,  waters 
whicli  would  be  affected  by  the  diversion  contemplated  by  the  Canal  &  Power  ('o., 
and  which  com])anies  also  have  certain  property  interests  in  Minnesota;  and  Lazarus 
Silverman,  re])resenting  the  Enterprise  Iron  &  Land  Co.,  which  has  valuable  land 
and  water  right  interests  in  Minnesota. 

It  is  understood  that  the  interests  of  the  last-named  comj^any  are  owned  or  con¬ 
trolled  by  the  Northeastern  Minnesota  Power  (,'o.  Others  having  interests  in  the 
United  States  are  the  lio])e  Land  Co.,  the  Higgins  Land  Co.,  and  the  Higgins  Wild 
Cat  Co.,  who  object  on  the  ground  that  the  reservoir  proposed  will  flood  their  lands, 
and  the  Duluth  &  Iron  Range  Railroad  Co.,  which  protests  against  the  projected  work 
as  being  “an  imi)roper  and  unwarranted  use  of  the  international  waters.” 

The  property  rights  and  interests  of  all  these  parties  will  be  injuriously  affected, 
to  a  greater  or  less  extent,  in  case  the  Minnesota  Canal  &  Power  Co.  is  permitted  to 
impound  the  waters  of  the  Birch  Lake  drainage  basin  and  divert  them  to  Lake  Suj)erior 
from  the  streams  flowing  into  the  boundary  waters.  The  commission,  however,  is  of 
the  opinion  that  the  rights  and  interests  of  these  parties  can  be  properly  ]n’otected 
under  the  law's  of  the  State  of  Minnesota.  We  therefore  conclude  that  their  objections 
do  not  present  any  international  (piestions,  and  such  questions  alone  the  commission 
considers  as  having  been  referred  to  it. 

'  The  second  class  of  objectors  includes  the  corporation  of  the  town  of  Fort  Frances, 
in  the  Province  of  Ontario,  which  claims  to  have  valuable  navigation  advantages 
upon  Rainy  River,  long  recognized  as  an  international  waterway;  the  Koochiching 
Co.,  a  cor])oration  organized  under  the  laws  of  the  State  of  Iowa,  the  owner  in  fee 
simple  of  a  section  of  land  bordering  on  Rainy  River  at  Koochiching  Falls,  opposite 
Fort  Frances;  the  Rainy  River  Improvement  C’o.,  a  corporation  organized  under  the 
laws  of  the  State  of  Minnesota  for  the  purjjose  of  improving  the  navigation  of  the 
boundary  waters  by  means  of  dams  and  canals  to  be  constructed  at  Koochiching  Falls 
and  elsewhere,  for  the  development  of  water  power  at  the  Koochiching  Dam,  and 
for  the  transportation  of  logs;  and  Edward  W.  Backus,  of  IMinneapolis,  who  has  entered 
into  a  contract  with  the  government  of  Ontario  by  which  he  has  agreed  to  construct 
a  dam  across  the  Rainy  River  and  develop  power  at  the  Koochiching  Falls,  which 
agreement  is  now  understood  to  be  assigned  to  the  Ontario  &  Minnesota  Power  Co., 
a  corporation  organized  under  the  laws  of  Canada.  It  is  understood  that  the  Koo¬ 
chiching  Co.,  the  Rainy  River  Improvement  Co.,  Edward  W.  Bachus,  and  the  Ontario 
&  Minnesota  Power  Co.  are  associated  and  are  acting  in  concert.  The  Rainy  River 
Navigation  Co.  and  the  city  of  Winnipeg  also  object  to  the  proposed  diversion. 

These  interests  strenuously  object  to  the  carrying  out  of  the  plans  of  the  Minnesota 
Canal  &  Power  Co.,  claiming  that  diminution  of  water,  by  reason  of  the  proposed 
diversion  in  the  streams  which  they  proposed  to  utilize,  will  greatly  injure  their  navi¬ 
gation  interests  and  their  ability  to  produce  electric  powej'. 

In  addition  to  these  objections  of  individuals,  the  Canadian  Government,  acting 
upon  a  memorial  of  the  municipal  cori)oration  of  Fort  Frances,  addressed  to  the 
Canadian  minister  of  marine  and  fisheries,  brought  the  proposed  diversion  to  the 
attention  of  the  British  ambassador  at  Washington  for  his  information  and  such 
action  as  might  be  possible  in  the  premises.  A  copy  of  this  memorial  is  hereto  attached 
marked  “Gi.”  Upon  receipt  of  the  communication  from  the  Canadian  Government 
the  BritLsh  ambassador  presented  the  matter  to  the.  Secretary  of  State  of  the  United 
States  on  January  3,  1905,  requesting  that  the  proposed  diversion  be  not  carried  out 
pending  the  meeting  of  this  commission. 

At  a  hearing  before  the  commission  held  at  Buffalo  on  the  26th  of  June,  1906, 
Col.  Anderson,  chief  engineer  of  the  department  of  marine  and  fisheries  of  Canada, 


52  INTEENATIONAL  WATEEWAYS  COMMISSION  PEOGEESS  EEPOET. 


and  Mr.  J.  G.  Sing,  engineer  in  charge  of  the  Rainy  River  district  of  the  department 
of  public  works  of  Canada,  appeared  and  opposed  the  proposed  diversion  on  the 
ground  that  it  would  be  detrimental  to  Canadian  interests,  and  especially  to  naviga¬ 
tion  upon  the  boundary  waters.  At  a  meeting  of  the  commission,  held  in  Toronto 
on  the  24th  day  of  July,  1906,  written  objections  were  presented  as  follows,  viz:  A 
resolution  of  the  municipal  council  of  the  town  of  Kenora,  Canada,  a  copy  of  which 
is  hereto  annexed,  marked  “Gs”;  a  letter  from  Mr.  George  A.  Graham,  manager  of 
the  Rainv  River  Navigation  Co.,  a  copy  of  which  is  hereto  annexed,  marked  “Gg,” 
a  resolution  of  the  Kenora  Board  of  Trade,  a  copy  of  which  is  hereto  annexed  and 
marked  “G4;”  and  a  written  statement  by  Mr.  Sing,  hereto  annexed,  marked  “G.5” 

At  a  meeting  of  the  commission,  held  at  the  city  of  Chicago,  Ill.,  on  the  17th  day 
of  October,  1906,  H.  X.  Ruttan,  city  engineer  of  the  city  of  Winnipeg,  Canada,  ap¬ 
peared  before  the  commission  in  opposition  to  the  application  of  the  Minnesota  Canal 
&  Power  Co.  After  stating  that  the  probable  head  available  for  power  purposes 
between  Rainy  Lake  and  Lake  Winnipeg,  on  the  Winnipeg  River,  approximates 
300  feet,  that  the  discharge  of  Winnipeg  River  at  Point  Du  Bois  Falls,  in  the  Pro\unce 
of  Manitoba,  was  19,000  cubic  feet  per  second  in  March,  1906,  and  that  the  discharge 
in  extreme  low  water  might  reach  a  minimum  of  17,000  cubic  feet  per  second;  that 
works  had  been  completed  and  were  in  course  of  construction  between  Rainy  Lake 
and  Lake  Winnipeg,  aggregating,  approximately,  150,000  horsepower,  invohung  an 
expenditure  of  between  $15,000,000  and  $20,000,000,  and  that  many  additional  powers 
are  projected,  some  of  which  will  no  doubt  be  constructed;  that  the  city  of  Winnipeg 
has  a  population  of  100,000,  which  is  rapidly  increasing,  and  has  voted  to  construct 
a  water  power  at  Point  Du  Bois,  at  a  cost  estimated  at  $3,125,000  for  preliminary 
development,  Mr.  Ruttan,  on  behalf  of  the  city  of  Winnipeg,  objected  to  the  diversion 
of  water  which  naturally  belongs  to  the  Winnipeg  watershed. 

The  action  of  the  British  Ambassador,  at  the  request  of  the  Canadian  Government, 
together  with  the  fact  that  the  rights  and  interests  of  Canadian  citizens  will  be  affected 
by  the  carrying  out  of  the  plans  of  the  Minnesota  Canal  &  Power  Co.,  and  the  fact 
that  navigation  of  boundary  waters  will  be  to  some  extent  injured  if  such  plans  are 
put  in  operation,  presents  international  questions  which,  in  the  opinion  of  this  com¬ 
mission,  will  be  involved  in  many  other  instances  of  boundary  streams  between  the 
two  countries,  and  require  the  most  careful  consideration.  In  order  that  there  may  be 
no  question  as  to  the  exact  intent  of  the  commission  in  giving  its  conclusions,  it  is 
deemed  best  to  state  with  as  much  exactitude  as  possible  the  existing  conditions  which 
give  rise  to  the  questions  to  be  disposed  of. 

The  commission  finds  the  physical  conditions  of  the  locality  to  be  as  follows:  The 
Birch  Lake  drainage  basin  is  situated  in  the  counties  of  St.  Louis  and  Lake,  in  the  State 
of  Minnesota,  the  border  of  the  basin  being  only  about  14  miles  from  Lake  Superior. 
This  drainage  basin  contains  a  chain  of  small  lakes,  the  largest  of  these,  known  as 
Birch  Lake,  l}ung  near  the  western  border  of  the  basin. 

A  portion  of  the  drainage  of  this  basin  flows  westerly  through  the  North  Kawishiwi 
River  and  Farm  Lake  to  Garden  Lake,  with  a  fall  of  about  56  feet  in  a  distance  of  9 
miles;  another  portion  flows  southwesterly  through  the  South  Kawishiwi  into  Birch 
Lake,  and  thence  northerly  through  Birch  River  and  White  Iron  Lake  to  Garden  Lake, 
the  distance  traversed  by  the  waters  along  this  route  being  about  24  miles.  Passing 
Kawishiwi  Falls,  the  waters  continually  increasing  in  volume,  flow  through  Fall 
Lake  over  the  Pipestone  Falls  to  Basswood  Lake,  lying  on  the  international  boundary 
between  the  United  States  and  Canada;  the  waters  thence  flow  in  a  general  northwest¬ 
erly  direction  through  Crooked  and  Iron  Lakes,  Lac  La  Croix,  Nam.akan  River  and 
Lake,  to  the  Rainv  Lake,  and  thence  through  Rainy  River  to  the  Lake  of  the  Woods. 
From  Basswood  Lake  to  the  Lake  of  the  Woods  the  waters  flow  along  the  international 
boundary  line  with  the  exception  of  about  20  miles,  where  they  traverse  the  Namakan 
River  entirely  in  Canadain  territory. 

Within  2  miles  of  the  western  end  of  Birch  Lake,  and  separated  from  it  by  a  low 
di\ude,  rises  the  Embarrass  River,  its  waters  flowing  southwesterly  through  Sabin, 
Embarrass,  and  Esquagamau  Lakes  into  the  St.  Louis  River,  and  thence  into  St.  Louis 
Bay  and  Lake  Superior.  The  St.  Louis  Bay  and  River  form  a  portion  of  a  boundary 
between  Minnesota  and  Wisconsin,  and  are  navdgable  from  Lake  Superior  to  Fond  du 
Lac,  Minn.  From  Fond  du  Lac  to  Colquet  the  St.  Louis  River  is  unna\'igable,  there 
being  a  fall  of  approximately  600  feet  in  a  distance  of  14  miles;  above  the  latter  point 
it  is  used  to  float  logs,  about  25,000,000  feet,  it  is  said,  being  transposed  annually. 

The  natural  waterway  from  Birch  to  Rainy  Lakes  may  be  described  as  a  series 
of  pools  of  greater  or  less  extent  connected  by  short  and  shallow  channels  containing 
rapids  or  falls.  The  pools  or  lakes  are  capable  of  floating  lo^s  and  are  in  general  navi¬ 
gable  by  small  steamboats,  but  the  connecting  channels  are,  in  their  natural  condition, 
not  navugable  save  by  canoes  or  small  boats  and  in  places  are  wholly  unna\'igable, 


!  INTERNATIONAL  WATERWAYS  COMMISSION  PROGRESS  REPORT.  53 

I  some  of  them  being  even  incapable  of  floating  logs,  except  at  times  of  high  water. 

"  The  channels  connecting  Birch  Lake  with  the  lakes  directly  north  are  of  this  character, 

I  and  a  dam  has  been  erected  at  the  outlet  of  Birch  Lake  for  the  purpose  of  raising  the 
water  and  floating  logs  over  the  rapids  by  means  of  the  greater  flow  made  available  by 
opening  gates;  and  at  the  outlet  of  Garden  Lake  a  roll  dam  has  been  built  to  serve  a 
similar  purpose. 

Na\dgation  upon  Birch  Lake  is  confined  to  canoes  and  rafts  of  logs  which  are  towed 

I  by  a  small  tug  called  a  log  puller.  This  tug  was  built  upon  the  lake  and  under  present 
natural  conditions  is  confined  to  its  waters.  Similar  conditions  prevail  on  White  Iron 
’  and  Garden  Lakes,  the  pools  next  below  or  north  of  Birch  Lake,  a  steam  log  puller 
being  operated  on  each.  About  20,000,000  feet  of  logs  are  said  to  be  transported 
annually  from  Birch  Lake  and  vicinity  to  a  sawmill  on  Fall  Lake. 

Between  Birch  Lake  and  Rainy  Lake  the  only  through  navdgation  is  by  canoes  and 
it  is  said  that  there  are  no  less  than  18  places  at  "which  portages  are  required  by  reason 
of  the  waterfalls  and  rapids. 

Basswood  and  Crooked  Lakes,  Lac  la  Croix,  and  Xamakan  Lake  are  all  na\’igable, 

I  and  it  is  understood  that  they  are  not  only  used  for  the  floating  of  logs,  but  that  one  or 
f  more  small  tugs  or  log  pullers  are  in  use  upon  each  of  them,  although  through  naviga- 
I  tion  by  boats  is  not  possible.  There  have  been  at  least  two  small  steamboats  operating 
[  on  Basswood  Lake,  having  a  gross  tonnage  of  3  and  10  tons,  respectively. 

Rainy  Lake  is  a  navigable  waterway  and  several  steamboats  of  small  tonnage  are 
operating  upon  it.  There  are  two  points  in  this  lake  restricting  the  navigable  depth. 
One  of  these  is  known  as  the  Brul4  Narrows,  about  midway  of  its  length,  and  the  other 
is  at  Pithers  Point,  at  the  outlet  of  the  lake  and  just  above  Koochiching  Falls.  The 
^  depth  at  these  points  in  ordinary  low  water  is  about  7  feet,  and  it  is  understood  that 
r  there  have  been  years  when  the  larger  boats  were  laid  up  on  account  of  low  water. 

[  The  allied  interests  represented  by  the  Rainy  River  Improvement  Co.,  on  the  Ameri- 
.  can  side,  and  the  Ontario  &  Minnesota  Power  Co.,  on  the  Canadian  side,  are  engaged  in 
building  dams  at  Fort  Frances,  above  Koochiching  Falls,  for  the  purpo^  of  improv- 
’  ing  the  water  power  and  thereby  incidentally  improving  the  na^dgability  of  Rainy 
’  Lake  by  raising  the  elevation  of  its  water  surface. 

There  are  two,  and  possibly  more,  steamboats  operating  on  Rainy  River,  and  making 
i  regular  trips  between  Fort  Frances,  at  the  Koochiching  Falls,  and  Rat  Portage,  on  the 
Lake  of  the  Woods,  and  touching  at  way  ports. 

The  only  improvement  made  by  the  United  States  Government  on  any  of  these 
waterways  is  at  the  harbor  of  Warroad,  Minn.,  which  has  been  improved  to  a  depth  of 
7  feet  beiow  the  stage  of  water  at  the  time  of  making  the  survey.  The  elevation  of  the 
Lake  of  the  Woods,  and  consequently  the  depth  of  the  water  in  the  harbor,  is  controlled 
by  the  operation  of  the  Keewatin  Dam  at  Rat  Portage,  which  is  operated  under  the 
du*ection  of  the  Canadian  Government.  The  Annual  Report  of  the  Chief  of  Engi¬ 
neers,  United  States  Army,  1904,  gives  the  following  statistics  regarding  the  commerce 
of  the  town  of  Warroad : 

“The  town  of  Warroad,  now  4  years  old,  has  a  population  of  700,  and  the  adjacent 
country  is  rapidly  filling  up  with  settlers.  The  imports  of  M  arroad  increased  from  254 
I  tons  in  1900  to  2,754  tons  in  1904.  During  the  same  period  the  exports  increased  from 
1,215  tons  to  9,929  tons.” 

In  the  report  of  1905,  the  following  statement  is  made: 

“The  town  of  Warroad,  now  5  years  old,  has  a  population  of  about  1,000,  and  the 
I  adjacent  country  is  rapidly  filling  up  with  settlers. 

“Up  to  this  time  Warroad  Harbor  has  had  no  regular  lake  traffic,  the  condition  of  the 
entrance  to  the  harbor  not  having  been  such  as  to  permit  it. 

“On  Lake  of  the  Woods  there  are  at  present  25  or  more  registered  Canadian  boats, 
ranging  from  30  to  486  tons  burden,  some  of  which  occasionally  visit  M  arroad  Harbor 
when  conditions  are  favorable. 

“The  United  States  boats  connected  with  Warroad  Harbor  are  the  propellers 
Na-ma-puk  and  Knute  Nelson,  the  former  about  36  feet  and  the  latter  about  80  feet  long. 
The  Canadian  Government  has  made  slight  improvements  above  the  Lake  of  the 
'  Woods,  and  an  agreement  has  been  made  between  the  Commissioner  of  Crown  Lands 
for  the  Province  of  COntario  and  E.  W.  Backus,  who  subsequently  transferred  his  rights 
to  the  Ontario  &  Minnesota  Power  Co.,  whereby  in  return  for  certain  water-power 
privileges  the  latter  is. required  to  construct  a  dam  at  Koochiching  Palls  to  be  subject 
.  to  the  control  of  the  Government,  making  it  possible  to  maintain  the  water  level  in 
Rainy  Lake  at  or  above  the  present  extreme  high-water  stage. 

The  country  traversed  by  the  waterway  leading  from  Birch  Lake  to  Rainy  Lake  is 
‘  in  general  rough  and  unimproved.  The  timber  consists  of  white  and  Norway  pine, 
spruce,  and  less  valuable  woods,  typical  of  Lake  Superior  forests.  The  pine  is  being 
rapidly  cleared  from  some  of  the  larger  tracts.  The  ^  ermilion  and  Mes.ibi  iron  dis¬ 
tricts  cross  the  territory  between  Birch  Lake  and  the  boundary  line,  and  the  soil  is 
shallow  and  not  well  suited  to  agriculture. 


54  INTEKNATIONAL  WATEKWAYS  COMMISSION  PEOGKESS  KEPORT. 


The  population,  in  1900,  of  the  townships  bordering  the  waterway  from  Birch  Lake 
to  and  including  Basswood  Lake,  did  not  exceed  4,000,  the  town  of  Ely  haying  a 
population  of  3,717.  This  sparse  population  depends  largely  upon  the  mining  and 
timber  industries  of  the  locality.  The  population  of  the  townships  on  the  American 
side  bordering  the  waterway  from  Basswood  Lake  to  and  including  the  Lake  of  the 
Woods,  and  covering  about  200  miles  of  shore  line,  was  only  about  600  according  to 
the  census  of  1900.  The  country  bordering  the  Lake  of  the  Woods  on  the  Canadian 
side  is  fairly  well  settled.  On  the  American  side  it  is  wilderness  composed  largely 
of  Indian  reservations,  portions  of  which  have  been  thrown  open  to  settlement.  The 
vicinity  of  Warroad  has  been  recently  so  opened.  ^ 

At  several  places  along  the  waterway  from  Birch  Lake  to  Rainy  Lake  develop¬ 
ment  of  water  power  is  possible,  but  at  most  of  them  it  is  not  commercially  feasible 
at  present,  for  the  following  reasons:  A  considerable  fall  is  not  usually  concentrated 
at  one  point  but  is  distributed  over  rapids;  the  flow  is  not  uniform,  but  is  very  small 
during  the  dry  season,  and,  unless  the  waters  of  the  flood  season  are  impounded,  the 
extent  of  the  possible  continuous  development  is  restricted  by  the  low- water  flow;  the 
construction  of  reservoirs  would  entail  a  heavy  expenditure  in  proportion  to  the 
possible  development;  the  demand  for  power  in  the  vicinity  is  extremely  limited. 

The  Kawishiwi  Falls  may  be  an  exception  to  this  general  rule,  and  the  develop¬ 
ment  of  this  power  may  be  commercially  practicable  in  the  near  future,  if  not  at 
present.  In  this  case  there  is  a  fall  of  about  65  feet  in  three-quarters  of  a  mile  between 
Garden  Lake  and  Fall  Lake;  and  by  the  construction  of  a  reservoir  system  similar 
to  that  proposed  by  the  applicant,  there  would  be  available  about  6,000  theoretical 
horsepower.  A  market  for  this  power  could  probably  be  found  at  Ely  and  in  the 
mines  in  the  locality. 

Between  Birch  Lake  and  White  Iron  Lake  there  is  a  natural  fall  of  about  28  feet. 
If  the  north  Kawishiwi  outlet  of  Birch  Lake  were  closed  by  a  dam,  and  an  extensive 
reservoir  system  constructed  similar  to  that  proposed  by  the  applicant,  there  would 
be  available  at  this  point  about  2,500  theoretical  horsepower. 

Below  Kawishiwi  Falls  and  between  the  outlet  of  Fall  Lake  and  Basswood  Lake 
there  is  a  fall  of  about  15  feet  in  less  than  3  miles.  By  using  820  cubic  feet  per  second, 
which  is  the  minimum  flow  plus  the  amount  of  water  to  be  diverted,  there  would  be 
available  about  1,500  theoretical  horsepower. 

The  value  of  the  three  water  powers  last  mentioned,  whether  present  or  prospective, 
would  be  practically  extinguished  by  the  applicant’s  proposed  works,  but,  as  before 
stated,  the  rights  of  their  owners  can  be  properly  protected  under  the  laws  of  Min¬ 
nesota. 

At  Koochiching  Falls  in  the  Rainy  River,  just  below  the  outlet  of  Rainy  Lake,  there 
is  a  natural  fall  of  about  23  feet  in  a  short  distance.  The  minimum  discharge  of  the 
river  has  been  estimated  at  3,500  cubic  feet  per  second.  This  volume  would  give 
about  7,800  theoretical  horsepower  without  storage,  and  by  raising  the  water  level  of 
Rainy  Lake  5  to  7  feet  by  means  of  dams  above  Koochiching  Falls  it  would  be  possible 
to  double  this  development.  Even  this  would  permit  the  utilization  of  less  than 
half  of  the  average  outflow.  Unless  an  extensive  reservoir  system  is  constructed, 
therefore,  including  the  lakes  nearer  the  headwaters,  at  least  one-half  of  the  waters 
of  the  basin  tributary  to  Rainy  Lake,  or  more  than  ten  times  the  quantity  of  water 
proposed  to  be  used  by  the  applicant,  will  serve  no  useful  purpose  for  power  develop¬ 
ment  at  this  point. 

The  improvements  for  which  the  applicant  now  asks  approval  are  as  follows:  To 
erect  a  dam  at  the  mouth  of  Gabbro  Lake  to  impound  water  in  the  lakes  tributary 
thereto  and  form  what  is  called  the  Isabelle  reservoir;  to  erect  a  dam  in  the  North 
Kawishiwi  River  to  impound  the  waters  in  the.  lakes  and  streams  tributary  to  Birch 
Lake  naturally  flowing  westerly  into  White  Iron  and  Garden  Lakes;  to  erect  a  dam 
in  the  South  Kawishiwi  River,  which,  in  connection  wdth  the  dam  last  men¬ 
tioned,  will  form  the  Kawishiwd  reservoir;  and  to  erect  a  -dam  in  Birch  River  at 
the  outlet  of  Birch  Lake  to  impound  its  waters  and  form  the  Birch  Lake  reservoir. 
The  company;  proposes  to  cut  a  canal  from  the  west  end  of  Birch  Lake,  a  distance 
of  about  6  miles,  across  the  divide  to  the  head’vvaters  of  the  Embarrass  River  and 
to  erect  controlling  works  at  the  entrance  to  this  canal  to  regulate  the  flow  of  water  from 
Birch  Lake  into  the  Embarrass  River  Canal.  From  a  point  in  the  St.  Louis  River 
above  Cloquet  it  proposes  to  dig  another  canal  about  24^  miles  long  to  a  point  in  the 
city  of  Duluth  where  the  bluff  is  about  600  feet  above  the  w^ater  level  of  Lake  Superior, 
and  to  lay  pipes  from  the  westerly  end  of  this — the  St.  Louis  River  Canal — to  the 
power  house  of  the  company  to  be  erected  on  the  shores  of  St.  Louis  Bay. 

It  is  proposed  to  divert  at  least  600  cubic  feet  of  w^ater  per  second  from  the  Birch 
Lake  reservoir  into  the  Embarrass  Canal  and  River,  and  thence  into  the  St.  Louis 
River,  and  to  take  the  same  amount  from  the  latter  into  the  St.  Louis  River  Canal 
and  convey  it  by  canal  and  pipes  to  the  turbines  located  in  the  company’s  power  house, 


IXTEKXATIOXAL  WATERWAYS  COMMISSION  PROGRESS  REPORT.  55 


'  thereby  developing  about  30,000  electrical  horsepo\yer,  llie  amount  of  water  diverted 
and  of  power  created  to  be  increased  hereafter  if  circumstances  ])ermit. 

The  amount  of  water  tlie  com])any  proposes  to  divert  from  the  natural  channels 
'  leading  to  llasswood  Lake,  and  thence  along  the  international  boundary,  is  estimated 

■  to  be  about  37  ])er  cent  of  the  water  tributary  to  Lasswood  Lake,  4  per  cent  of  that 
tributary  to  Rainy  Lake,  and  2.4  ])er  cent  of  that  tributary  to  the  Lake  of  the  ^\■oods. 

The  data  available  covering  the  hydraulic  conditions  are  inadequate  for  an  accurate 
analysis  of  the  effect  of  the  works  proposed  by  the  company,  since  the  distribution  of 

■  the  sup])ly  and  the  discharge  of  the  outlets  of  the  several  lakes  throughout  the  year 
have  not  been  determined.  The  effect  on  the  navigable  depth  of  Rainy  Lake  and  the 

^  waterway  below  that  point  would  be  very  slight  under  natiiral  conditions,  and  become 
still  less  important  by  reason  of  the  fact  that  the  elevation  of  Rainy  Lake  will  be 
controlled  by  the  Koochiching  dam,  when  conqileted,  as  the  elevation  of  the  Lake 
of  the  Woods  is  now  controlled  by  the  Keewatin  dam.  The  company  offers  no  objec¬ 
tion  to  the  suggestion  to  conserve  navigation  interests  by  the  construction  of  such 
remedial  works  as  may  be  necessary.  While  the  data  are  insufiicient  to  determine 
the  extent  of  the  remedial  works  required,  they  are  sufhcient  to  warrant  the  belief 

that  full  compensation  is  possible.  ... 

The  minimum  discharge  from  Rirch  Lake  drainage  basin  is  estimated  by  the  engi¬ 
neers  of  the  com])any  to  be  about  220  cubic  feet  per  second,  and  the  average  discharge 
*  about  975  cubic  feet  per  second.  The  reservoir  system  created  by  the  dams  pro])osed 
by  the  com])any  will  permit  of  storing  a  portion  of  the  waters  during  months  of 
excessive  supply  for  use  during  the  remainder  of  the  year  when  the  natural  su])ply 


is  deficient.  ,  ,  .  ,  . 

From  April  to  June,  inclusive,  the  supply  to  the  lakes  is  greatly  in  excess  ot  the 
natural  discharge,  and  in  July,  August,  and  September  the  supply  in  a  year  of  ordinal y 
precipitation  is  probably  in  excess  of  the  amount  to  be  withdrawn  by  the  apjilicant. 
It  would  appear,  therefore,  that  the  reservoirs  might  in  general  be  ke])t  full  untn 
October  1.  The  reservoirs  proposed  by  the  applicantare  suflicient  to  store  8,019,000,000 
cubic  feet  of  water  and  it  is  claimed  that  this  capacity  might  be  doubled  by  an  exten¬ 
sion  of  its  works  without  interference  with  other  watersheds  draining  north.  If 
the  proposed  smaller  capacity  reservoirs  were  full  on  October  1,  the  applicant  could 
withdraw  its  own  supply  entirely  from  the  reservoirs  for  five  months  and  still  permit 
the  natural  supply  of  the  lakes  during  this  low-water  period  to  flow  into  the  Present 
channel.  Under  such  conditions  the  usual  low-water  discharge  of  Birch  and  Aorth 
Kawishiwi  Rivers  would  be  depleted  by  the  amount  of  water  now  supplied  by  the 
lakes  tributary  to  them,  namely,  by  the  natural  decrease  in  stage  of  those  lakes  duiing 
low  water.  It  would  be  possible  to  require  the  company  to  maintain  at  all  times  a 
flow  in  the  natural  channel  equal  to  the  present  estimated  minimum  discharge,  without 

disastrouslv  affecting  the  applicant’s  j)lans.  .  ,  i  i 

The  lakes  could  be  held  at  or  above  the  present  elevation  by  a  dam  properly  con¬ 
structed  at  the  outlet  of  each,  and  the  future  improvement  of  the  stream,  in  generab 
bv  locks  and  dams,  would  not  be  impaired  when  prospective  commerce  demands  such 
a  step.  In  order,  however,  to  accommodate  the  commerce  now  existing  or  in  pios- 
pect  between  adjoining  lakes  above  Rainy  Lake,  namely,  the  transportation  ot  logs 
over  rapids  and  falls,  the  gates  in  these  dams  would  have  to  be  operated  with  regard 
to  the  necessities  of  commerce  rather  than  to  serve  the  interest  of  the  ap})licant,  and 

should  be  so  operated.  ^  •  t-  ^ 

In  a  reiiort  upon  this  subject  addressed  to  the  Chief  of  Engineers,  United  btates 
Armv,  bv  Maj.  Cleo.  McC.  Derby,  May  24,  1905,  Idaj.  Derby  enumerated  the  con¬ 
ditions  under  which  he  considered  the  application  should  be  granted,  and  the  a])pli- 
cant  appears  to  be  willing  to  accept  these  conditions,  which  include  the  lolloiMiig. 

“The  Minnesota  Canal  &  Power  Co.  should  construct  and  maintain  a  dam  or  dams 
in  Lake  Namakan,  or  at  some  other  point  or  points  above  Rainy  Lake,  so  as  to  impound 
and  store  during  periods  of  high  water,  when  it  would  otherwise  go  to  \yaste,  an  amount 
of  water  equal  to  the  entire  amount  diverted  from  the  watershed  of  Rainy  Lake,  releas¬ 
ing  this  water  into  Rainy  Lake  from  time  to  time  as  the  interests  of  navigation  in 
Rainy  River  and  above  may  require,  in  accordance  with  regulations  to  be  made  by 

the  Secretary  of  War.  ,  •  ^  i  i 

“The  Minnesota  Canal  &  Power  Co.  should  construct  and  maintain  such  acklitional 

dams  as  may  be  necessary  to  maintain  Basswood  Lake  and  the  other  lakes  between 
Birch  Lake'and  Rainy  Lake  at  or  above  their  mean  level;  and  should  release  Irom 
all  such  dams  from  tinie  to  time  such  amount  of  water  as  may  be  necessary  to  sluice 
logs  from  one  lake  to  the  next,  and  for  other  interests  cf  navigation,  in  accordance  with 

regulations  to  be  made  by  the  Secretary  of  War;  ,  ,  •.  f  i 

It  is  (luite  apparent  that  the  interests  to  be  promoted  at  the  futy  of  Duluth,  and 
at  the  Minnesota  mines,  by  the  generation  and  transmission  ot  electricity,  il  the 


56  INTERNATIONAL  WATERWAYS  COMMISSION  PROGRESS  REPORT. 


diversion  be  permitted,  will  be  very  great,  the  amount  of  horsepower  which  will  be 
available  being  about  30,000. 

The  canal  which  the  applicant  proposes  to  construct,  and  the  improvement  of 
the  lakes  and  streams  south  of  the  Birch  Lake  drainage  area,  will  furnish  additional 
aids  to  navigation,  particularly  for  the  transportation  of  logs  out  in  the  forests  within 
that  area. 


INTERNATIONAL  ASPECT  OF  QUESTIONS  INVOLVED. 

The  proposed  diversion,  so  far  as  it  would  affect  navigation  upon  boundary  waters, 
presents  a  serious  objection  to  the  granting  of  the  permit  asked. 

By  the  terms  of  Article  II  of  the  treaty  of  1842  between  the  United  States  and 
Great  Britain,  the  boundary  line  from  a  point  in  the  Neebish  Channel,  where  the  com¬ 
missioners  appointed  under  the  sixth  article  of  the  treaty  of  Ghent  ended  their  labors, 
was  defined  westward  to  the  Rocky  Mountains.  In  that  article  there  is  added  to  the 
description  this  sentence:  “It  being  understood  that  all  the  Avater  communications 
and  all  the  usual  portages  along  the  line  from  Lake  Superior  to  the  Lake  of  the  Woods, 
and  also  Grand  Portage,  from  the  shore  of  Lake  Superior  to  the  Pigeon  River,  as  now 
actually  used,  shall  be  free  and  open  to  the  use  of  the  citizens  and  subjects  of  both 
countries.” 

This  clause  secures  to  Canada  free  and  unobstructed  navigation  of  the  boundary  waters 
from  which  the  proposed  diversion  is  to  be  made.  In  the  opinion  of  the  commission 
it  secures  to  Canada,  by  necessary  construction,  the  right  to  navigate  those  waters  in 
any  manner  which  the  natural  flow  will  permit.  Any  interference  with  the  natural 
flow  which  decreases  the  navigable  capacity  of  Basswood  Lake,  Rainy  River,  Rainy 
Lake,  or  the  Lake  of  the  Woods  is  a  violation  of  the  letter  and  spirit  of  the  treaty,  and 
the  extent  of  the  interference  is  not  important.  If  the  navigable  capacity  is  injuriously 
affected,  Canada  has  the  right  to  object.  Nor  does  the  possibility  of  restoring  and 
regulating  the  flow  in  the  boundary  waters  mentioned,  by  remedial  works,  confer  any 
right  to  lessen  the  navigable  capacity,  for  such  works  will  have  to  be  constructed  in 
part  in  the  Dominion  of  Canada  and  this  can  not  be  done  without  Canada’s  consent, 
nor  can  the  burden  of  constructing  such  works  be  imposed  upon  her. 

The  commission  is  aware  that  the  clause  of  the  treaty  of  1842.  quoted,  has  received 
a  different  construction  from  that  which  we  place  upon  it.  It  has  been  said  that  the 
phrase  “as  now  actually  used”  applied  to  the  use  of  the  waters,  and  that,  as  at  the 
time  the  treaty  was  entered  into  those  waters  were  used  for  conoe  navigation  only, 
the  treaty  secured  the  right  of  canoe  navigation  and  nothing  more.  This  construction 
seems  to  us  erroneous.  The  language  of  the  clause  secures  the  free  and  open  use  of 
the  waters  specified  and  the  use  of  Grand  Portage,  as  it  was  then  “actually  used.” 
We  deem  it  quite^  clear  upon  the  face  of  the  treaty  that  this  was  the  intention  of  the 
treaty  powers.  The  clause  we  are  considering  is  divided  into  two  subjects:  One  is 
the  free  and  open  use  of  the  water  communications  and  usual  portages,  and  the  other 
is  the  use  of  Grand  Portage,  and  the  subject  matters  are  separated  by  the  expression 
“and  also,”  which  would  seem  clearly  to  make  the  expression  “as  now  actually  used” 
relate  to  the  Grand  Portage,  inasmuch  as  that  is  introduced  by  the  expression,  “and 
also.”  This  construction  would  seem  to  be  supported  by  the  conditions  existing  at 
the  time  the  treaty  ivas  negotiated  and  also  by  the  obvious  purpose  of  the  treaty. 

When  the  treaty  was  entered  into,  the  navigable  waters  on  the  boundary  line  west 
of  Lake  Superior  were  connected  by  portages  which  ivere  reasonably  well  defined  and 
which  naturally  would  be  followed,  but  the  Grand  Portage,  extending  from  Lake 
Superior  overland  to  the  Pigeon  River,  was  of  great  length  and  subject  to  considerable 
change  in  accordance  with  the  views  of  those  who  might  use  it  from  time  to  time. 
It  was  clearly  necessary  to  define  the  Grand  Portage  by  some  description  in  the  treaty, 
and  this  was  done  by  inserting  the  phrase  “as  now  actually  used.”  It  was  evidently 
the  intention  of  the  treaty-making  powers,  in  defining  the  boundaries,  to  secure  to 
both  countries  the  free  and  open  use  of  the  boundary  waters  for  interior  communication 
and  transportation,  and  it  would  seem  to  be  a  narrow  construction  of  the  clause  in 
questioii  which  would  assign  to  those  powers  the  intent  to  limit  the  right  of  com¬ 
munication  and  transportation  to  canoes,  for  this  would  place  them  in  the  position 
of  utterly  ignoring  future  conditions  and  practically  destroying  the  value  of  the  water¬ 
ways  as  means  of  communication.  The  broader  and  proper  construction,  in  the 
opinion  of  the  commission,  is  that  the  intent  was  to  preserve  to  both  countries  the 
“free  and  open  use”  of  the  boundary  waters,  in  any  manner  that  they  could  be  made 
of  use  for  the  purposes  mentioned. 

In  the  opinion  of  the  commission,  therefore,  the  permit  to  permanently  diA^ert 
Avaters  Avhich  AA'ould  supply  the  boundary  lakes  and  streams  ought  not  to  be  granted 
without  the  concurrence  of  the  Dominion  of  Canada. 


r 


INTERNATIONAL  WATERWAYS  COMMISSION  PROGRESS  REPORT.  57 

Aside  from  the  effect  of  the  treaty  of  1842,  there  are  other  considerations  which 
lead  the  commission  to  the  conclusion  that  the  permit  applied  for  should  not  be 
granted  without  the  concurrence  of  Conada. 

The  proposed  diversion  will,  to  some  extent,  injuriously  affect  riparian  rights 
upon  the  Canadian  side  of  the  boundary  waters,  will  also  affect  the  water  supply  of  the 
Jsamakan  River,  and  other  waters,  wholly  in  Canada.  The  principles  involved  in 
arriving  at  this  ('onclusioii  do  not  impugn  the  right  of  the  United  States  to  grant  the 
permit,  but  they  are  of  such  great  im})ortance,  and  of  such  widespread  application, 
that  the  commission  believes  they  should  be  settled  and  applied  for  both  countries. 

As  the  necessity  for  an  enormous  increase  in  the  appropriation  of  water  wholly 
within  one  country,  has  given  rise  in  later  years  to  conditions  which  never  existed 
before,  recourse  to  authorities  upon  international  law  for  direct  precedents  is  useless, 
but  there  are  certain  principles  of  international  law  which  have  a  direct  bearing  upon 
the  question  under  consideration  and  which  should,  in  the  opinion  of  the  commission, 
be  sufficient  for  their  solution. 

It  can  hardly  be  disputed  that,  in  the  absence  of  treaty  stipulation,  a  country 
through  which  streams  have  their  course  or  in  which  lakes  exist  can,  in  the  exercise 
of  its  sovereign  powers,  rightfully  divert  or  otherwise  appropriate  the  waters  within 
its  territory  for  purposes  of  irrigation,  the  improvement  of  navigation,  or  for  any  other 
purpose  which  the  Government  may  deem  proper.  This  principle  was  lucidly 
stated  by  Mr.  Harmon,  Attorney  General  of  the  United  States,  on  the  12th  of  Decem¬ 
ber,  1895,  in  a  communication  to  the  Secretary  of  State.  (Opinions  of  Attorney 
General,  vol.  21,  p.  274.)  The  question  submitted  to  the  Attorney  General  by  the 
Secretary  of  State  involved  the  right  to  appropriate  the  waters  of  the  upper  Rio  Grande 
for  irrigation  purposes,  to  the  injury  of  residents  of  Mexico,  and,  in  giving  his  opinion, 
the  Attorney  General  laid  down  the  .law  as  follows;  “The  fundamental  principle  of 
international  law  is  the  absolute  sovereignty  of  every  nation  as  against  all  others  within 
its  own  territory.”  He  then  quoted  from  Chief  Justice  Marshall’s  opinion  in  Schooner 
Exchange  v.  McFadden  (7  Cranch,  p.  136),  the  following  excerpt: 

“The  jurisdiction  of  the  nation  within  its  own  territory  is  necessarily  exclusive 
and  absolute.  It  is  susceptible  of  no  limitation  not  imposed  by  itself.  Any  restric¬ 
tions  upon  it,  deriving  validity  from  an  external  source,  would  imply  a  diminution 
of  its  sovereignty  to  the  extent  of  the  restriction,  and  an  investment  of  that  sover¬ 
eignty  to  the  same  extent  in  that  power  which  could  impose  such  restriction. 

“All  exceptions,  therefore,  to  the  full  and  complete  power  of  a  nation  within  its 
own  territories  must  be  traced  up  to  the  consent  of  the  nation  itself.  They  can  flow 
from  no  other  legitimate  source.” 

Great  Britain  also  has  insisted  upon  the  same  principle  in  the  matter  of  the  naviga¬ 
tion  of  the  lower  St.  Lawrence.  The  history  of  the  ])ositions  taken  by  the  United 
States  and  Great  Britain  need  not  be  recited,  but  it  will  be  noted  that  Great  Britain 
did  not  recede  from  her  position  and  simply  conceded  by  treaty  the  right  of  navigation 
upon  certain  concessions  being  made  by  the  United  States. 

It  would  seem,  therefore,  to  be  settled  international  law,  recognized  by  both  coun¬ 
tries,  that  the  exercise  of  sovereign  power  over  waters  within  the  jurisdiction  of  a 
country  can  not  be  questioned  and  that,  notwithstanding  such  exercise  may  take 
a  form  that  will  be  injurious  to  another  country  through  which  the  waters  of  the  same 
streams  or  lakes  pass,  it  can  not  be  rightfully  regarded  as  furnishing  a  cause  of  war. 
But  where  the  citizens  of  a  country  are  injured  by  such  exercise  of  sovereignty,  inter¬ 
national  law  recognizes  (unless  there  is  urgent  necessity  for  its  exercise)  that  there  is 
a  breach  of  comity  which  entitles  the  country  whose  citizens  or  subjects  are  injured 
to  retaliate.  Sir  llobert  Phillimore,  in  his  “Commentaries  upon  International  I, aw” 
(edition  of  1879,  pp.  12  and  131,  clearly  draws  the  distinction  between  the  international 
duties  of  Governments  as  they  affect  public  interests  and  as  they  affect  private  interests. 
He  states  the  international  law  as  follows: 

“  The  obligationes  juris  privati  inter  gentes  are  not,  as  the  obligationes  juris  publici 
inter  gentes  are,  the  result  of  legal  necessity,  but  of  social  convenience,  and  they  are 
called  by  the  name  of  comity — comitas  gentium. 

“It  is  within  the  absolute  competence  of  a  State  to  refuse  permission  to  foreigners 
to  enter  into  transaction  -with  subjects,  or  to  allow  them  to  do  so,  being  forewarned 
that  the  municipal  law  of  the  land  will  be  applied  to  them;  therefore  a  breach  of 
comity  can  not,  strictly  speaking,  furnish  a  casus  belli,  or  justify  a  recourse  to  war, 
any  more  than  a  discourtesy  or  breach  of  a  natural  duty,  simply  as  such,  can  furnish 
ground  for  the  private  action  of  one  individual  against  another. 

“For  want  of  comity  toward  the  individual  subjects  of  a  foreign  State,  reciprocity 
of  treatment  by  the  State  whose  subject  has  been  injured  is,  after  remonstrance  has 
been  exhausted,  the  only  legitimate  remedy;  whereas  the  breach  of  a  rule  of  ])id)lic 
international  law  constitutes  a  casus  belli,  and  justifies  in  the  last  resort  a  recourse 
to  war.” 


58  INTERNATIONAL  WATERWAYS  COMAIISSION  PROGRESS  REPORT. 


It  would  seem  that  comity  would  require  that,  in  the  absence  of  necessity,  the 
sovereign  power  should  not  be  exercised  to  the  injury  of  a  friendly  nation,  or  of  its 
citizens  or  subjects,  without  the  consent  of  that  nation. 

The  common  law  protects  riparian  owners  against  permanent  diversions  of  water 
which  injuriously  affect  their  rights,  and  this  law  is  founded  upon  principles,  not 
merely  of  social  necessity,  but  of  justice  and  right.  While  the  common  law  is  not 
a  part  of  the  law  of  nations,  its  principles  so  far  as  they  are  founded  in  justice  and 
equity,  ought,  where  practicable,  to  be  applied  by  nations  acting  in  their  sovereign 
capacity.  The  Department  of  State  of  the  United  States  has  adopted  this  principle 
in  the  past,  and  although  the  application  was  made  in  the  case  of  conflicting  riparian 
rights  on  a  boundary  stream,  yet  the  commission  can  see  no  sound  distinction  between 
the  position  taken  by  the  Government  of  the  United  States  in  the  case  referred  to 
and  cases  of  diversion  of  water  wholly  within  one  country  where  the  diversion 
injuriously  affects  riparian  owners  in  another  country.  This  application  of  the 
common  law  was  made  by  Mr.  Evarts,  Secretary  of  State.  It  was  complained  that 
Mexicans  upon  the  Rio  Grande  in  the  neighborhood  of  El  Paso  were  diverting  so 
much  of  the  waters  of  the  river  for  irrigation  purposes  as  to  seriously  affect  the  amount 
which  could  be  obtained  by  citizens  of  the  United  States  for  a  like  purpose.  Mr. 
Evarts  in  a  communication  to  Mr.  Navarro,  the  Mexican  minister  (June  15,  1880), 
directs  his  attention  to  the  complaints  and,  after  referring  to  the  abstraction  of  water 
by  the  Mexican  popidation  for  irrigation  purposes,  says: 

“As  this  is  not  only  in  direct  o])position  to  the  recognized  rights  of  riparian  pro¬ 
prietors,  but  is  also  contrary  to  that  good  feeling  and  harmony  which  ought  to  exist 
between  colaborers  in  peaceful  pursuits,  and  might,  moreover,  if  permitted  to  con¬ 
tinue,  result  in  bitter  feeling  and  possible  breaches  of  the  peace,  I  most  earnestly 
request,  in  these  high  interests,  that  you  will  have  the  goodness  to  bring  the  matter 
to  the  attention  of  your  Government  with  a  view  to  procuring  a  cessation  of  the 
annoyance  complained  of.”  (Vol.  1,  p.  63,  Wharton’s  International  Law  Digest.) 

IMr.  Earnham,  while  somewhat  overstating  the  law,  in  his  work  on  “Waters  and 
Water  Rights”  (edition  of  1904,  vol.  1,  p.  29),  forcibly  enunciates  the  principles 
which  should  obtain,  citing  authorities: 

“A  river  which  flows  through  the  territory  of  several  States  or  nations  is  their 
common  property.  Each  is  entitled  to  its  navigation  throughout  its  whole  extent, 
so  far  as  it  can  be  exercised  without  injury  to  the  rights  of  othels.  It  is  a  great  natural 
highway  conferring,  besides  the  facilities  of  navigation,  certain  incidental  advantages 
such  as  fishery  and  the  right  to  use  the  water  for  power  and  irrigation.  Neither 
nation  can  do  any  act  which  vdll  deprive  the  other  of  the  benefits  of  these  rights  and 
advantages. 

“The  inherent  right  of  a  nation  to  protect  itself  and  its  territory  would  justify  the 
one  lower  down  the  stream  in  preventing  by  force  the  one  further  up  from  turning 
the  river  out  of  its  course,  or  in  consuming  so  much  of  the  water  for  purposes  of  its 
own  as  to  deprive  the  former  of  its  benefit.  Conversely,  the  upper  owner  would 
have  a  right  to  prevent  an  obstruction  of  the  stream  which  would  prevent  fish  from 
ascending  to  its  shores,  or  interfere  with  its  rights  of  navigation.  To  prevent  resort 
to  force,  courts  of  arbitration  Avoidd  protect  these  rights,  and  the  courts  of  the  re¬ 
spective  nations  will  prevent  acts  on  the  part  of  their  own  subjects  which  interfere 
with  the  rights  of  subjects  of  other  States.  And  courts  having  a  supervisory  jiiris- 
diction  over  the  act  of  the  political  department  of  government  will  prevent  acts  by 
that  department  which  will  injure  the  rights  of  neighboring  States.  The  gifts  of 
nature  are  for  the  benefit  of  mankind,  and  no  aggregation  of  men  can  assert  and 
exercise  such  rights  and  ownership  of  them  as  will  deprive  others  having  equal  rights, 
and  means  of  enjoying  them,  of  such  enjoyment.  The  acts  of  nations  must  be  gov¬ 
erned  by  principles  of  right  and  justice.  The  days  of  force  and  self-aggrandizement 
at  the  expense  of  neighboring  nations  are  past,  and  the  common  right  to  enjoy  the 
bountifid  provisions  of  Providence  must  be  preserved.” 

Messrs.  Jeremiah  Smith  and  George  B.  French  very  fully  and  ably  discuss  in  the 
Harvard  Review,  November,  1894,  volume  8,  No.  3,  the  power  of  a  State  to  divert 
an  interstate  river.  They  said: 

“Because  Massachusetts  can  compel  a  sale  of  property  in  Massachusetts,  it  does 
not  follow  that  it  also  can  compel  a  sale  of  property  in  New  Hampshire.  Massachusetts 
has  not  the  power  to  compel  a  New  Hampshire  riparian  proprietor  to  sell  his  right 
(annexed  to  and  arising  out  of  his  New  Hampshire  land),  that  the  water  of  the  river 
should  continue  to  flow  to  his  land.  A  State  can  not  exercise  the  power  of  eminent 
domain  extraterritorially.  ]\Iassachusetts  can  not  condemn  land  in  New  Hampshire. 
Massachusetts  can  not,  as  against  a  citizen  of  New  Hampshire,  authorize  the  doing 
of  an  act  in  Massachusetts  which  will  residt  in  the  taking  of  property  rights  in  New 
Hampshire.  Massachusetts  could  not  authorize  the  building  of  a  dam  in  Massachu¬ 
setts  which  would  flood  land  in  New  Hampshire. 


INTERNATIONAL  WATERWAYS  COMMISSION  PROGRESS  REPORT.  59 

“By  parity  of  reasoning,  Massachusetts  could  not  authorize  the  construction  of  an 
aqueduct  or  canal  in  Massachusetts  which  would  divert  water  from  a  stream  naturally 
flowdng  to  New  Hampshire.  The  right  infringed  by  flooding  New  Hampshire  land 
may  be  called  absolute  ownership.  The  right  infringed  by  diverting  water  from 
the  New  Ham])shire  land  mav  be  called  an  easement.  The  consecpience  in  the  one 
case  may  be  positive,  and  in  the  other  case  negative.  IBit  in  each  case  it  is  a  ])roperty 
right  that  is  infringed;  and  the  consequence  is  as  direct  ip  the  latter  case  as  in  the 
former.  *  *'  *  Massachusetts,  even  if  an  entirely  distinct  and  independent 
sovereignty — even  if  standing  to  New  Hampshire  in  the  relation  of  France  to  S]>ain — 
would  not’have  a  right,  under  the  rules  of  international  law,  to  do  this  act.  The  law 
of  nations  recognizes  no  such  right,  even  between  States  wholly  foreign  to  each 
other.  *  *  *  IMassachusetts,  instead  of  merely  denying  New  Hampshire’s  right 

to  use,  in  Massachusetts,  that  part  of  the  river  which  naturally  flows  through  Massa¬ 
chusetts,  is,  in  effect,  denying  New  Hamp.shire’s  right  to  use,  in  Neiv  Hampshire, 
that  part  of  the  river  which’ naturally  flows  through  New  Hampshire.  Massachusetts, 
instead  of  saying  to  New  Hampshire’:  ‘You  shall  not  hereafter  use,  in  Massachusetts, 
that  part  of  the  common  river  which  flows  through  Massachusetts,’  makes  a  far  more 
startling  declaration.  :Massachusetts  says  to  New  Hampshire:  ‘You  shall  not  here¬ 
after  have  the  use  of  the  river,  even  within  your  own  borders,  for  Massachusetts 
denies  your  right  to  have  any  part  of  the  river  flow  through  New  Hampshire. 

These  principles  were  applied  in  the  Holyoke  M  ater  Power  Co.  v.  Connecticut 
River  Co.  (22  Blatch.,  131;  20  Fed.,  71). 

In  this  case  the  plaintiff. claims  that  its  property  located  in  Massachusetts  would  be 
injured  by  the  defendants  raising  a  dam  in  the  State  of  Connecticut.  The  defendant 
justified  under  powers  given  it  bv  the  State  of  C^onnecticut,  claiming  that  its  proposed 
structure  was  in  aid  of  navigation.  A  permanent  injunction  was  granted  enjoining 

the  defendant.  .  . 

The  court,  after  holding  that  the  State  of  Connecticut  had  junsdiction  over  lands 
within  its  boundaries,  says:  “As  Connecticut  has  no  direct  jurisdiction  or  control 
over  real  estate  situate  in  another  State,  it  can  not  indirectly,  by  virtue  of  its  attempted 
improvement  of  its  own  navigable  waters,  control  or  subject  to  injury  foreign  real 
estate.  If  this  resolution  -is  a  bar  to  an  action  for  any  consequent  injury  to  land  or  to 
rights  connected  with  land  in  :Massachusetts,  Connecticut  is  acting  extraterritorially.” 

CONCLUSIONS. 

The  commission  has  arrived  at  the  following  conclusions: 

1.  Mliile  the  work  proi)osed  l.w  the  ap])licant  will  be  of  great  advantage  to  the 
interests  served,  it  will  interfere  with  public  and  private  interests  in  Canada,  and  the 
commission  sees  no  public  necessity  for  it. 

2.  The  proposed  diversion  will  injure  the  interests  of  various  classes  of  persons, 
namely,  residents  of  the  United  States  having  property  rights  in  the  State  of  Minne¬ 
sota,  residents  of  the  United  States  having  property  rights  and  interests  in  Canada  and 
in  the  boundary  waters,  residents  of  Canada  having  property  rights  and  interests  in 
Canada,  and  municipalities  in  the  Dominion  of  Canada.  The  rights  and  interests 
which  will  be  affected  are  divisible  into  two  classes,  namely,  those  which  depend 
upon  navigation  directly  or  indirectly  and  those  which  depend  upon  the  use  of  waters 
of  the  various  streams  and  lakes  for  power  purjioses. 

3.  The  proposed  diversion  will  affect  injuriously  navigation  upon  the  boundary 
waters  between  the  United  States  and  Canada,  above  mentioned,  and  upon  navigable 
waters  in  Canada  connecting  said  boundary  waters;  but, 

4.  So  far  as  water-power  interests  on  the  international  boundary  or  in  Canada  are 
concerned,  which  depend  upon  the  supply  from  the  Birch  Lake  drainage  area, 
although  remedial  works  at  locations  above  Rainy  Lake  may  be  constructed,  the  total 
amount  of  water  which  can  be  stored  and  used  for  power  purposes  upon  the  boundary 
and  connecting  waters  located  wholly  in  Canada  will  be  diminished.^ 

5.  The  applicant,  the  Minnesota  Canal  &  Power  Co.,  of  Duluth,  Minn.,  under  the 
decision  of  the  supreme  court  of  Minnesota,  above  cited,  apparently  has  not  the  power 
to  utilize  the  permit  it  seeks  to  obtain,  but  possibly  may  acquire  that  power.  It 
would  seem,  therefore,  that  the  permit  which  the  applicant  seeks,  ought  not  in  any 
case  to  be  granted  before  it  secures  authority  under  the  laws  of  Minnesota  to  utilize  it. 

G.  That  the  rights  and  interests  of  the  residents  of  Minnesota  which  may  be  affected 
by  the  proposed  diversion  are  of  so  much  less  importance  than  the  interests  which  wMl 
be  promoted  by  the  proposed  works  of  the  applicant  that  they  do  not  furnish  a  suffi¬ 
cient  reason  for  refusing  the  permit  sought,  inasmuch  as  full  compensation  must  be 
made  to  such  persons  under  the  laws  of  Minnesota. 

7.  Neither  the  State  of  IMinnesota  nor  the  United  States  can  provide  the  adequate 
means  by  which  money  compensation  can  be  ascertained  and  made  to  the  owners 


60  INTERNATIONAL  WATERWAYS  COMMISSION  PROGRESS  REPORT. 


of  the  interests  in  Canada  which  may  be  injured,  and  it  follows  that  individuals  sus¬ 
taining  injury  would  be  relegated  to  litigation.  This  is  a  violation  of  the  principle 
of  law  that  private  property  shall  not  be  taken  for  public  use,  unless  provision  for  com¬ 
pensation  can  be  made  without  litigation  and  its  attendant  delays  and  expense. 

8.  So  far  as  remedial  works  are  concerned,  it  is  sufficient  ot  say  that  there  is  no  juris¬ 
diction  in  the  United  States  or  in  the  State  of  Minnesota  to  provide  for  or  permit  the 
erection  of  the  necessary  remedial  works  in  Canada. 

9.  That  although  it  might  be  advisable  to  grant  the  permit  applied  for,  in  case  the 
applicant  shoiild  acquire  the  powers  necessary  to  utilize  it,  if  objections  arising  from 
international  relations  did  not  exist,  treaty  provisions,  international  comity,  and  the 
impossibility  of  providing  just  means  of  assuring  adequate  compensation  for  injury 
to  interests  in  Canada,  or  of  preserving  navigation  unimpaired  on  the  boundary 
streams,  without  concurrent  action  of  both  Governments  concerned,  lead  us  to  the 
conclusion  that  the  permit  should  not  be  granted  unless  the  full  protection  of  all 
interests  not  cared  for  by  the  laws  of  Minnesota  be  secured  by  concurrent  action  of  the 
United  States  and  Canada. 

RECOMMENDATIONS. 

1.  The  commission  would,  therefore,  recommend  that  the  permit  applied  for  be 
not  granted  without  the  concurrence  of  the  Canadian  Government. 

^  2.  As  questions  involving  the  same  principles  and  difficulties,  liable  to  create  fric¬ 
tion,  hostile  feelings,  and  reprisals,  are  liable  to  arise  between  the  two  countries, 
affecting  waters  on  or  crossing  the  boundary  line,  the  commission  would  recommend 
that  a  treaty  be  entered  into  which  will  settle  the  rules  and  principles  upon  which  all 
such  questions  may  be  peacefully  and  satisfactorily  determined,  as  they  arise. 

3.  The  commission  would  recommend  that  any  treaty  which  may  be  entered  into 
should  define  the  uses  to  which  international  waters  may  be  put  by  either  country 
without  the  necessity  of  adjustment  in  each  instance,  and  would  respectfully  suggest 
that  such  uses  should  be  declared  to  be: 

(а)  Use  for  necessary  domestic  and  sanitary  purposes. 

(б)  Service  of  locks  used  for  navigation  purposes. 

(c  The  right  to  navigate. 

4.  The  commission  would  also  respectfully  suggest  that  the  treaty  should  prohibit 
the  permanent  diversion  of  navigable  streams  which  cross  the  international  boundary 
or  which  form  a  part  thereof,  except  upon  adjustment  of  the  rights  of  all  parties  con¬ 
cerned  by  a  permanent  commission,  and  with  its  consent. 

All  of  which  is  respectfully  submitted. 

O.  H.  Ernst, 

Brigadier  General,  U.  S.  Army,  Retired, 

Chairman  American  Section, 

George  Clinton, 

Member. 

E.  E.  Haskell, 

Member. 

Geo.  C.  Gibbons, 
Chairman  Canadian  Section. 

W.  F.  King,  Member, 

Louis  Coste,  Member. 

To  the  honorable  the  Secretary  of  War  of  the  United  States,  and 

To  the  honorable  the  Minister  of  Public  Works  of  Canada. 


Gj. 

Fort  Frances,  Ontario,  March  17,  1904. 

^  The  memorial  of  the  undersigned  municipal  corporations,  persons,  and  corpora¬ 
tions  respectfully  showeth: 

That  at  the  height  of  land  in  St.  Louis  and  Lake  Counties,  in  northern  Minnesota, 
the  waters  from  Birch  Lake  and  White  Iron  Lake,  and  the  streams  running  out  thereof, 
and  the  immense  watershed  thereof,  run  northward  and  ultunately  into  Rainy  Lake, 
and  from  there  into  Rainy  River,  passing  into  the  Lake  of  the  Woods. 

That  the  water  from  this  source  forms  by  computation  7  per  cent  of  the  water  pass¬ 
ing  out  of  Rainy  Lake  over  Alberton  Falls  at  Koochiching. 

That  the  water  system  of  Rainy  Lake,  Rainy  River,  and  the  Lake  of  the  Woods 
have  long  been  established  as  a  commercial  highway.  That  from  the  Canadian  ports 
of  Rat  Portage  and  Fort  Frances  two  large  and  well-equipped  passenger  and  freight 


INTERNATIONAL  WATERWAYS  COMMISSION  PROGRESS  REPORT.  61 


lines  ply  daily  during  the  season  of  navigation,  forming  the  means  of  water  communi¬ 
cation  between  the  (’anadian  ports  of  Rat  Portage,  Rainy  River  town,  Roucherville, 
Rarwick,  Emo,  Rig  Forks,  Little  Forks,  Lsherwood,  Fort  Frances,  Rears  Pass,  Seine 
River,  and  Mine  Center,  and  forming  along  a  considerable  part  of  such  route  the  only 
vehicle  of  passenger  ami  freight  communication. 

That  the  most  important  section  of  the  200  miles  of  navigation  is  the  Rainy  River, 
flowing  through  what  is  rapidly  becoming  a  thickly  populated  and  i)rosperous  valley 
for  some  eighty  odd  miles,  with  towns  rapidly  building  up  at  close  intervals  on  its  banks, 
dependent  almost  wholly  on  the  river  route  for  their  mercantile  and  manufacturing 
interests.  That  the  fine  class  of  steamboats  plying  on  this  water  is  already  in  certain 
portions  of  the  summer  ham])ered  by  low  water  on  the  rapids  and  shoals  of  the  river, 
and  the  pro])rietors  of  the  regular  steamboat  lines  have  been  earnestly  petitioning  for 
such  improvement  being  made  on  the  river  as  would  remove  such  disability,  a  disa¬ 
bility  that  com])els  the  withdrawal  for  considerable  intervals  during  each  summer  of 
some  of  the  large  and  deeper  draft  steamboats. 

That  in  view  of  the  fact  that  navigation  is  already  suffering  for  lack  of  ade¬ 
quate  water  in  portions  of  Rainy  River  and  in  portions  of  Rainy  Lake,  your 
memorialists  are  surprised  and  alarmed  to  learn  that  active  steps  are  being 
taken  by  a  corporation  named  the  Minnesota  Canal  &  Power  Co.,  of  Duluth,  Minn., 
to  obtain  the  authorization  of  the  Federal  Government  of  the  United  States, 
through  the  Commissioner  of  the  General  Land  Office,  at  Washington,  to  construct  a 
dam  or  dams  and  canal  to  divert  all  the  waters  of  the  Rirch  Lake  and  White  Iron  Lake 
watershed  hereinbefore  referred  to,  into  the  Emgarrass  River,  and  by  it  into  Lake 
Superior,  thus  diverting  from  and  robbing  this  long-established  international  water¬ 
way  of  Rainy  Lake  and  River  of  the  large  proportion  mentioned  of  its  tributary  waters. 

That  if  permission  is  given  by  the  Federal  Government  of  the  United  States  to  the 
project  of  the  said  Minnesota  Canal  &  Power  Co.,  a  disastrous  injustice  will  be  * 
done  to  establish  Canadian  and  American  navigation  companies  that  are  using  the 
water  highway  of  Rainy  Lake  and  River  and  to  the  manufacturing  towns  along  the 
river,  both  on  the  Canadian  and  United  States  sides.  And  a  most  dangerous  precedent 
will  be  established  the  consequences  of  which  can  hardly  be  estimated  if  any  attempt 
to  interfere  with  or  divert  from  their  natural  flow  be  permitted  of  any  portion  of  the 
waters  of  the  great  watershed  lying  between  the  Lake  Superior  slope  and  the  northern 

slope.  ,  1  i  £ 

Your  memorialists  would  therefore  most  earnestly  pray  that  the  Government  ot 

Canada  should,  in  the  interest  of  this  important  international  navigation  route,  at  once 
communicate  with  the  Federal  Government  of  the  United  States  and  take  prompt 
and  active  measures  to  avert  the  disastrous  consequences  of  permission  being  unwit¬ 
tingly  given  by  the  General  Land  Office  at  Washington  to  any  scheme  to  interfere  with 
or  divert  any  portion  of  the  waters  tributary  to  the  international  waterways  aforesaid. 

W.  J.  Keating,  Mayor  of  Fort  Frances. 

F.  II.  Warner,  Clerh  of  Fort  Frances. 

The  Minister  of  Marine  and  Fisheries, 

Dominion  of  Canada, 


Whereas  it  has  been  reported  that  proposals  have  been  made  to  divert  from  their 
present  course  certain  lakes  and  streams  in  northern  Alinnesota,  which  lakes  and 
streams  now  form  a  part  of  the  supply  of  waters  of  Rainy  Lake  and  River  and  the 
Lake  of  the  Woods;  and 

Whereas  the  division  of  these  waters  from  their  natural  course  is  apt  to  cause  a  very 
material  lowering  of  the  waters  of  these  lakes  and  river,  thus  entailing  heavy 
losses  to  hydraulic-power  consumers,  steamboat  owners,  and  lumbermen  who 
have  invested  their  capital  under  existing  conditions:  Therefore 
Be  it  resolved,  That  this  municipal  council  of  the  town  of  Kenora  do  protest  most 
emphatically  against  any  interference  with  the  natural  flow  of  these  waters,  and  that 
a  copy  of  this  resolution  be  forwarded  to  the  honorable  secretary  of  state  for  Canada, 
and  to  the  chief  engineer  of  the  Deep  Waterways  Commission.  .  .  i 

We  hereby  certify  the  foregoing  to  be  a  true  copy  of  resolution  of  the  municipal 
council  of  the  town  of  Kenora,  adopted  at  meeting  held  July  4, 1906. 

A.  Carmichael,  Mayor, 
D.  II.  CuNiE,  Clerk. 


62  INTEKNATIONAL  WATERWAYS  COMMISSION  PROGRESS  REPORT. 


G3. 

Rainy  River  Navigation  Co.  (Ltd,), 

Kenora,  Ontario,  July  6,  1906. 

Dear  Sir  :  Mr.  Carmichael,  our  mayor,  has  informed  me  that  you  wished  to  know  what 
effect  the  diverting  of  any  water  naturally  feeding  the  Lake  of  the  Woods  would  have 
on  the  business  of  our  company.  To  this  matter  I  have  given  a  great  deal  of  attention, 
and  have  followed  the  course  of  the  water  supply  of  Rainy  River  very  carefully,  and 
I  am  convinced  that  the  water  supply  is  not  sufficiently  great  to  allow  of  the  diversion 
of  any  of  the  water  without  causing  very  serious  loss  to  the  transportation  business. 
Of  course  1  am  not  an  engineer  and  can  not  give  you  any  figures  with  reference  to  this 
matter,  but  I  can  tell  you  from  long  practical  observation  that  it  would  be  a  great 
detriment  to  navigation  should  any  water  be  diverted,  as  there  is  none  to  spare.  I 
trust  that  our  Government  will  object  strenuously  to  any  diversion  of  the  headwaters 
of  the  Lake  of  the  Woods. 

Yours,  truly,  Geo.  A,  Graham,  Manager. 

J.  Y.  Sing,  Esq,, 

Engineer  in  Charge  Department  Public  Worhs,  Toronto. 


G4. 

[Extract  from  minutes  of  meeting  of  th^  board  of  trade  of  the  district  of  Rainy  River.] 

Kenora  Board  of  Trade, 
Kenora,  Canada,  July  4,  1906. 

Whereas  it  has  been  learned  by  this  board  that  an  application  has  been  made  by  the 
Minnesota  Canal  &  Power  Co.  for  privileges  to  divert  water  from  the  Birch  Lake 
draining  basin  in  the  State  of  Minnesota  to  Lake  Superior;  and 
Whereas,  this  board  is  assured  that  such  diversion  of  the  said  water  will  have  a 
serious  effect  upon  the  navigation  of  Rainy  Lake  and  Rainy  River  by  rendering 
impossible  the  present  means  of  transportation  for  boats  and  vessels  now  plying  upon 
the  said  waters,  with  a  resultant  heavy  but  undeserved  loss  to  the  owners  of  same 
and  a  heavy  blow  to  the  trade  and  commerce  of  the  district  adjacent  to  said  waters, 
and  to  the  people  relying  upon  the  same,  not  only  by  means  of  navigation,  but  for 
power  for  manufacturing  purposes;  Now,  therefore. 

Be  it  resolved.  That  this  board  do  hereby  protest  most  emphatically  against  the 
diversion  of  the  said  waters  as  aforesaid,  and  would  urge  that  the  present  levels  of  the 
said  waters,  having  been  adapted  to  existing  requirements  of  navigation  and  the 
creation  of  electrical  power,  should  be  maintained. 

And  that  a  copy  of  this  resolution  be  forwarded  to  the  honorable  the  minister  of 
public  works  and  the  member  of  this  election  district, 

J.  P.  Earnply,  President. 

J.  Dean,  Secretary. 


Gg. 

Toronto,  July  21,  1906. 

Gentlemen:  I  have  the  honor,  in  accordance  with  directions  received  from  your 
honorable  body  during  your  recent  meeting  in  Buffalo,  to  submit  the  following  state¬ 
ment  regarding  the  application  of  the  Minnesota  Power  &  Canal  Co.  to  divert  the  flow 
of  certain  waters  forming  the  boundary  between  the  United  States  and  Canada,  adjoin¬ 
ing  the  State  of  Minnesota  and  Province  of  Ontario. 

I  feel  it  would  not  be  fair  for  anyone  to  pass  censure  upon  several  of  the  technical 
arguments  that  have  been  advanced  by  the  Minnesota  Power  &  Canal  Co.  in  support 
of  their  application  to  divert  waters  from  the  drainage  basin  of  Birch  Lake,  unless  any 
censure  so  passed  was  based  upon  exact  knowledge  resulting  from  special  surveys  and 
examinations  of  the  territory  likely  to  be  affected  by  the  diversion  of  said  waters. 
Not  possessing  full  data,  resulting  from  such  special  surveys  and  examinations,  I  have 
considered  it  more  profitable  for  the  purposes  of  your  honorable  commission  to  express 
my  views  in  the  following  manner: 

‘Permit  me  to  make  a  few  general  remarks,  and,  first  of  all,  let  me  say  that  deductions 
made  from  technical  data  and  calculations  designed  to  exhibit  the  very  small  effects 


INTERNATIONAL  WATERWAYS  COMMISSION  PROGRESS  REPORT.  63 

which  the  additions  or  subtractions  of  i)odies  of  water  may  have  upon  the  levels  of 
certain  other  bodies  of  water  in  nature  are  deductions  which  experience  in  actual 
cases  has  sometimes  faih'd  to  substantiate. 

As  is  w(‘ll  known,  the  changes  our  climate  is  manifestiiic;,  the  denudation  of 
timber  lands,  es]H'cially  in  localities  such  as  the  districts  surrounding:  Rainy  Lake, 
Lake  of  the  Woods,  and  like  influences,  directly  affect ‘the  run-off  from  the  water¬ 
sheds;  and  the  volume  of  water  discharged  from  watersheds  may,  in  time,  become 
so  changed  as  to  materially,  and  disadvantageously  affect  the  navigable  pro])erties  of 
any  waterways  to  which  such  watersheds  contribute  their  su])ply. 

When  one  ap])reciates  the  fact  that  a  variation  of  a  fraction  of  a  foot  in  the  depth 
of  a  waterway  may  be  the  factor  which  determines  whether  or  not  boats  are  able  to 
navigate  a  certain" channel,  one  can  hardly  be  content  to  regard,  without  apprehen¬ 
sion,  the  total  removal  of  waters  which  are  capable  of  rendering  even  small  aid  to 
navigation  at  times  wdien  that  aid  may  be  most  necessary. 

And,  while  it  may  be  argued,  (hat  if  waters  are  diverted  from  certain  channels 
so  that  the  levels  in  those  channels  are  detrimentally  affected,  then  other  waters, 
elsewhere  may  be  reservoired  so  as  to  compensate  for  the  effects  of  said  diversion; 
nevertheless,  one  must  consider  whether  or  not  it  be  wise  to  thus  utilize  stored  waters 
to  relieve  an  artificially  created  condition,  when  the  future  might  po.ssibly  disclose 
a  set  of  natural  conditions  that  could  only  be  relieved  through  the  em])loyment  of 
these  same  systems  of  reserA'oirs. 

It  is  a  sense  of  the  important  bearing  of  the  facts  set  forth  in  these  remarks  that 
cause  me  to  say  that  in  my  judgment  the  absolute  diversion  by  the  Minnesota  Canal 
&  Power  Co.  of  the  waters  they  desire,  and  which  now  contribute  to  the  flow'  of  waters 
in  Rainy  Lake,  and  the  Lake  of  the  Woods,  and  Rainy  River,  is  a  procedure  which 
must  disadvantageously  affect  the  navigable  properties  of  waterways  which  form 
part  of  the  international  boundary  between  Canada  and  the  United  States. 

In  su])port  of  this  opinion  I  beg,  respectfully,  to  submit  the  attached  letters,  which 
express  the  views  of  parties  whose  interests  are  closely  allied  wdth  the  commercial 
navigation  of  some  of  these  boundary  waters. 

It  is  apparent  from  these  communications  that  parties  interested  in  the  navigation 
of  Rainy  Lake,  Rainy  River,  and  the  Lake  of  the  Mhods  view  wdth  much  apprehen¬ 
sion  a  proposal  to  divert  waters  after  the  manner  proposed  in  the  application  of  the 
Minnesota  Canal  &  Power  Co. 

There  is,  however,  a  phase  of  the  discussion  arising  from  the  application  of  this 
company  which  has  appeared  to  me  worthy  of  more  serious  and  full  consideration 
than,  so  far  as  I  am  aware,  it  has  already  had.  That  phase  is  the  possible  effect 
which  the  diversion  of  the  w^aters  of  Birch  Lake  drainage  basin  will  have  upon 
Basswood  Lake  and  the  water  courses  interconnecting  it  with  Rainy  Lake. 

It  may  be  recalled  that  in  addition  to  the  water  route  from  Lake  Superior  westward 
via  the  "Grand  Portage  and  the  international  boundary  there  is  the  Canadian  water 
route  which  has  been  traversed  by  many,  and  with  troops  and  supplies  by  the 
Red  River  expedition  in  the  early  seventies. 

Entering  this  Canadian  route  at  Thunder  Bay,  one  proceeds  either  by  the  old 
canoe  route  of  the  Hudson  Bay  Co.  or  by  the  Dawson  route  to  Lac  des  Mille  Lacs, 
thence  onward  via  the  chain  of  waters  to  the  international  boundary,  joining  the 
boundary  at  Lac  La  Croix.  From  Lac  La  (hoix  to  Rainy  Lake  water  transportation, 
comparatively  good  for  this  territorv,  is  met  with. 

Now  Basswood  Lake,  which  is  capable  of  being  navigated  by  small  steamers,  also 
forms  part  of  the  international  boundary  lying  to  the  east  of  Lac  La  Croix,  and  the 
waters  of  Lac  La  Croix  are  largely  contributed  to  by  the  flowage  through  and  from 
Basswood  Lake,  which  lake  in  turn  is  chiefly  fed  from  the  waters  which  flow  into  it 

from  the  Birch  Lake  drainage  basin.  i  t  i 

The  question  therefore  arises.  What  effect  will  the  diversion  of  these  Birch  Lake 
waters  have  upon  the  levels  in  Basswood  Lake,  in  Lac  La  Croix,  and  in  those  other 
waters  which  constitute  the  highway  of  water  transportation  to  Rainy  I.,ake,  Rainy 
River,  Lake  of  the  Woods,  and' on  to"  Lake  Winnipeg?  ,  r 

In  the  course  of  the  discussions  which  have  taken  place  with  respect  to  the  appli¬ 
cation  of  the  Minnesota  Canal  &  Power  Co.,  the  applicants  have  undertaken  to  show 
that  the  removal  of  the  volume  of  water  which  they  desire  to  divert  from  the  waters 
which  now  contribute  to  the  flowage  along  the  international  waterway  would  ha\e 
a  comparatively  small  effect  upon  the  levels  of  Rainy  Lake  and  the  Lake  of  the 
Woods,  owing  chiefly  to  the  large  areas  of  the  watershed  and  great  storage  capacities 

of  these  bodies  of  water.  ' 

While  it  may  be  true  that  the  area  of  watershed,  viz,  670  square  miles,  correspond¬ 
ing  to  the  volume  of  water,  viz,  600  cubic  feet  per  second,  proposed  to  be  diverted 


64  INTERNATIONAL  WATERWAYS  COMMISSION  PROGRESS  REPORT. 


by  the  Minnesota  Canal  &  Power  Co.,  is,  according  to  the  data  supplied  by  this  com¬ 
pany’s  engineers,  approximately  only  4  per  cent  of  the  total  area  tributary  to  Rainy 
Lake  and  approximately  only  2.3  per  cent  of  the  total  area  tributary  to  the  Lake  of 
the  Woods,  yet  this  area  of  670  square  miles,  corresponding  to  the  proposed  diversion, 
is  ap])roximately  37  per  cent  of  the  total  area  tributary  to  Basswood  Lake. 

In  the  absence  of  data  giving  the  annual  range  of  water  levels  on  Lac  La  Croix 
and  Basswood  Lake,  I  am  unable  to  indicate  the  amount  of  the  changes  in  levels 
which  the  proposed  diversion  of  Birch  Lake  waters  would  entail.  It  seems  evident, 
however,  that  a  diversion  of  the  waters  of  the  Birch  Lake  drainage  basin  to  the 
extent  just  stated,  of  37  per  cent  of  the  total  area  tributary  to  Basswood  Lake,  would 
undoubtedly  have  an  immediate  and  great  effect  upon  the  levels  in  Basswood  Lake; 
and  this  effect  would  probably  be  noticeable  to  navigators  along  the  water  courses 
connecting  Basswood  and  Rainy  Lakes.  In  other  words,  it  might  be  affirmed  that 
part  of  a  great  system  of  waterways,  of  more  or  less  navigable  waters,  would  be  detri¬ 
mentally  affected  by  diverting  from  their  flowage  the  waters  proposed  to  be  diverted 
by  the  Minnesota  Canal  &  Power  Co. 

Again,  when  we  consider  the  vast  energies  and  sums  of  money  which  have  actually 
been  spent  and  which  annually  are  being  expended  by  nearly  all  countries  upon 
their  internal  waterways  and  canals,  and  when  we  consider  also  the  chain  of  waters 
connecting — through  many  portages  it  is  true — Lake  Superior  with  the  West,  it 
might  be  too  hasty  a  conclusion  for  anyone  to  state  that,  for  navigation  purposes, 
these  waters  might  not  be  much  improved.  If  such  improvement  is  ever  to  take 
place,  might  it  not  require  all  the  water  naturally  shedding  from  the  territory  through 
which  this  great  waterway  passes?  Capitalists  are  reported  to  have  already  proposed 
the  canalization  of  the  waters  lying  between  Lake  Superior  and  Lake  Winnipeg.  In 
the  particular  territory  under  discussion  railway  traffic  through  Fort  Frances  and 
Kenora  could  be  better  regulated  if  the  waterways  along  the  international  boundary 
were  kept  open  for  the  best  water  communications  they  were  able  to  afford. 

Clearly,  if  enterprises  such  as  the  Minnesota  Canal  &  Power  Co.  could  obtain  the 
right  to  divert  waters  from  channels  having  present,  and  admitting  of  future,  improved 
navigation,  then  through  such  precedent  much  of  the  safeguard  to  the  interests  of 
navigation  would  be  removed. 

In  conclusion  I  may  say  that  I  find  myself  unable  to  report  with  favor  upon  an 
application  such  as  has  been  made  by  the  Minnesota  Canal  &  Power  Co.  until  such 
time  as  it  would  be  demonstrated  that  the  interests  of  navigation  in  future  would 
not  be  compromised  by  the  removal  of  waters  diverted  after  the  manner  in  which 
the  Minnesota  Canal  &  Power  Co.  propose  to  divert  part  of  the  waters  which  naturally 
and  materially  contribute  to  the  flowage  in  the  navigable  channels  of  the  interna¬ 
tional  waterway  between  Canada  and  the  United  States. 

In  speaking  of  the  canalization  of  the  waters  between  Lake  Superior  and  the  Lake 
of  the  Woods  I  find,  upon  reference  to  the  report  of  the  engineers  who  made  the 
survey,  that  there  are  311  miles  of  navigable  waters  between  the  summit  near  Lake 
Superior  and  the  Lake  of  the  Woods,  and  by  the  proper  arrangement  of  a  series  of 
stop-log  dams  and  the  construction  of  locks  these  waters  can  be  fully  utilized  for 
transportation  purposes.  The  navigation,  as  proposed,  would  entail  very  little  canal 
work,  as  the  cutting  would  not  amount  to  more  than  1  mile  in  the  entire  distance  of 
311  miles. 

In  the  development  of  this  route  there  is,  under  the  present  natural  conditions, 
plenty  of  water,  if  conserved  judiciously,  for  feeders,  but  it  would  not  be  safe  to 
allow  a  diversion  of  any  portion  of  the  flow  in  an  opposite  direction  to  that  intended 
by  nature. 

The  total  cost  of  opening  up  this  route  has  bee  n  estimated  at  $1,500,000  by  the 
engineers  who  made  the  survey. 

This  waterway,  if  fully  developed,  would  prove  a  safeguard  against  excessive  rates 
being  charged  on  any  railway  that  might  parallel  it. 

I  have  the  honor  to  be,  gentlemen,  yours  obediently, 

J.  G.  Sing, 
Engineer  in  Charge. 

To  the  Chairman  and  Members  op  the 

International  AVaterways  Commission. 

Thomas  Cote, 

Secretary^  Canadian  Section, 

International  Waterways  Commission,  Toronto,  Canada. 


INTERNATIONAL  WATERWAYS  COMMISSION  PROCiHESS  REPORT.  65 


APPENDIX  II. 


Report  upon  the  Application  of  the  International  Development  (Jo.  for 
Permission  to  (’onstruct  Regulating  Works  in  the  Richelieu  River,  by 
THE  ('OMMISSION,  NOVEMBER  15,  1906. 


Inter.national  W  aterways  Commission, 

Office  of  American  Section, 

328  Federal  Building, 
Buffalo,  N.  Y.,  November  15,  1906. 

To  the  honorable  the  Secretary  of  W'ar  of  the  United  States  and  to  the  honor¬ 
able  the  Minister  of  Public  W^orks  of  Canada: 

The  International  W  aterways  Commission  has  the  honor  to  submit  the  following 
report  on  the  ap])lication  of  the  International  Development  Co.  for  permission  to  con¬ 
struct  regulating  works  in  the  Richelieu  River,  referred  to  it  by  indorsement  of  the 
honorable  Secretary  of  War  of  the  United  States,  dated  November  6,  1906. 

The  applicants  are  the  assignees  of  a  charter  granted  by  special  act  of  the  Parliament 
of  the  Dominion  of  Canada  to  the  Lake  Champlain  &  St.  Lawrence  Ship  Canal  Co. 
(statutes  of  Canada,  1898,  chapter  107),  which  has  been  extended  by  two  enactments, 
the  last  of  which,  in  the  year  1905  (statutes  of  Canada,  chapter  116),  extends  the  time 
for  commencing  the  works  of  the  company  to  the  year  .1908. 

No  plans  of  the  proposed  works  have  been  submitted,  and  it  is  understood  that 
none  have  been  made.  The  works  are  to  be  located  in  Canadian  territory  and  can 
be  built  only  with  the  authority  and  approval  of  the  Canadian  Goveunment.  It 
is  supposed  that  proper  plans  will  in  due  season  be  submitted  to  that  Government. 
The  works  will,  however,  affect  the  levels  of  Lake  Champlain,  and  may  thus  seriously 
affect  the  navigation  or  property  interests  of  American  citizens  oti  that  lake.  The 
company  submits  a  preliminary  statement  showing  in  general  what  is  proposed  to  be 
accomplished,  and  the  supposed  effect  upon  Lake  Champlain,  with  a  view  to  ascer¬ 
tain  what  the  attitude  of  the  Luiited  States  Government  will  be  toward  the  enter-' 
prise,  and  it  is  that  which  has  been  referred  to  us. 

It  is  ascertained  from  this  statement  that  for  navigation  and  power  purposes  a 
continuous  flow  of  not  less  than  9,000  cubic  feet  per  second  is  desired  in  the  Riche¬ 
lieu  River.  The  average  annual  flow  is  greater  than  this,  being  about  12,700  cubic 
feet  per  second.  The  low'-water  discharge  is  about  3,800  cubic  feet  per  second  and 
there  are  periods,  sometimes  extending  over  six  or  eight  months,  when  the  discharge 
is  continuously  less  than  9,000.  It  is  proposed  to  store  up  in  Lake  Charnplain  during 
the  high-water  season  enough  of  the  surplus  water  to  supply  the  deficiency  during 
the  low-water  season.  For  this  purpose  regulating  works  are  to  be  constructed  in 
the  Richelieu  River  by  which  the  level  of  Lake  Champlain  will  be  maintained  at  a 
minimum  of  97  feet  above  tide  at  New  York;  and  it  is  stated  that  these  works  will- 
not  under  any  circumstances  raise  the  high-water  level  of  Lake  Champlain  above 
“the  present  high-water  mark,”  given  as  101.5.  Thus  it  is  proposed  to  give  the  lake  a 
range  of  4.5  feet. 

On  page  324  of  the  report  of  the  Board  of  Engineers  upon  Deep  \\  aterways  between 
the  Great  Lakes  and  the  Atlantic  Tide  Waters  is  a  tabular  statement  of  the  monthly 
mean  discharge  of  Lake  Champlain  for  the  years  1875  to  1898,  inclusive.  An  examina¬ 
tion  of  this  table  shows  that  the  period  which  gave  the  lowest  discharge  extended 
from  September,  1882,  to  March,  1883;  that  which  gave  the  next  lowest  extended 
from  September,  1876,  to  March,  1877;  that  which  gave  the  third  lowest  extended 
from  September,  1883,  to  February,  1884;  and  that  which  gave  the  fourth  lowest 
extended  from  August,  1894,  to  March,  1895.  During  these  periods  the  amount 
flowing  was  less  than  9,000  cubic  feet  per  second,  and  in  order  to  maintain  that  flow 
it  would  have  been  necessary  to  draw,  from  water  previously  stored  for  the  purpose, 
the  difference  between  9,000  cubic  feet  and  the  amount  which  actually  flowed. 

Cubic  feet. 


% 

n 


Deficiencies  for  the  first  period .  ^8,  803,  840,  000 

Deficiencies  for  the  second  period .  55,  572,  480,  000 

Deficiencies  for  the  third  period .  51,  278,  400,  000 

Deficiencies  for  the  fourth  period .  46,  759,  680,  000 


The  area  of  Lake  Champlain  is  436.7  sciuare  miles,  or  12,174,497,280  square  feel. 
The  depth  required  to  store  the  deficiency  during  the  first  of  the  above  periods  is 
4.81  feet;  that  for  the  second  period  is  4.56  feet;  for  the  third  period  it  is  4.21  feet; 


S.  Doc.  959-62-3 - 5 


66  INTERNATIONAL  WATERWAYS  COMMISSION  PROGRESS  REPORT. 


and  for  the  fourth  period  it  is  3.84  feet.  Adding  1.25  for  evaporation  in  eight  months, 
these  depths  become  6.06,  5.81,  5.46,  and  5.09,  respectively.  The  range  proposed, 
4.5  feet,  will  therefore  not  be  sufficient  to  provide  9,000  cubic  feet  per  second  through¬ 
out  the  low- water  season  in  very  dry  years. 

A  range  much  greater  can  not  be  admitted  without  inflicting  damage  either  upon 
the  riparian  owners  or  the  navigation  interests  of  Lake  Champlain.  In  determining 
what  is  a  proper  high-water  and  what  a  proper  low-water  stage  in  this  connection 
it  is  not  fair  to  take  the  extremes  which  the  lake  may  have  reached  at  long  intervals 
in  its  history.  A  high-water  stage  reached  once  in  20  years,  for  example,  might 
inflict  damage  to  property  without  destroying  it,  while  if  reached  every  year  it  might 
cause  complete  destruction;  likewise  the  obstruction  to  navigation  caused  by  an 
extreme  low-water  stage  would  be  greatly  multiplied  if  repeated  every  year. 

The  table  on  page  323  of  the  Report  on  Deep  Waterways  quoted  above  gives  the 
monthly  mean  stages  of  Lake  Champlain  from  1875  to  1898.  The  highest  stage  there 
recorded  is  100.13  for  the  month  of  April,  1896.  Upon  only  two  other  occasions  did 
the^  stage  reach  100.  To  raise  the  level  above  100  regularly  every  year  would  be 
to  inflict  an  injury  upon  the  riparian  proprietors. 

The  mean  elevation  of  the  lake  for  the  entire  period  was  96.10.  The  lowest  stage 
reached  was  93.65.  During  seven  years  it  did  not  fall  below  95.  To  allow  the  lake 
to  be  drained  below  95  every  year  would  be  to  inflict  injury  upon  the  navigation 
interests. 

The  limits  between  which  the  lake  should  be  regulated  are  therefore  100  as  a 
maximum  and  95  as  a  minimum,  notwithstanding  that  the  reserve  of  water  will  not 
in  very  dry  years  be  sufficient  to  supply  9,000  cubic  feet  per  second. 

As  Lake  Champlain  is  wholly  within  the  territory  of  the  United  States  and  the 
proposed  works  are  wholly  within  Canadian  territory,  the  international  questions 
raised  are  of  some-moment.  It  is,  in  our  opinion,  not  desirable  that  either  nation 
should  obstruct  the  natural  flow  of  streams  crossing  the  international  boundary  to 
the  injury  of  public  or  private  rights  in  the  other.  It  is  manifest,  therefore,  that 
the  applicants  should  furnish  conclusive  evidence  that  private  rights  in  the  States 
of  New  York  and  Vermont  adjoining  Lake  Champlain  will  not  be  injuriously  affected 
by  the  alteration  of  the  lake  level  as  proposed,  and  that  as  the  Secretary  of  War  of 
the  United  States  has  control  of  the  interests  of  navigation  on  Lake  Champlain,, the 
said  work  should  not  be  undertaken  without  his  permission,  and  should  be  operated 
under  such  regulations  as  he  may  direct  with  a  view  to  the  maintenance  of  the  level 
of  the  said  lake  as  the  interests  of  navigation  thereon  may  require.  It  would  be 
possible  to  plan  works  adapted  to  the  conditions,  and  in  our  opinion  such  works 
should  be  permitted,  provided  they  do  not  interfere  with  private  interests  in  the 
United  States  and  meet  with  the  approval  of  the  Secretary  of  War  as  suggested. 

We  respectfully  submit  that  in  any  treaty  to  be  had  between  the  two  nations  in 
relation  to  the  use  of  international  waters  the  principles  above  suggested  should  have 
consideration.  We  would  further  suggest  that  the  applicant’s  Canadian  act  of  incor¬ 
poration  should  be  amended  so  as  to  provide  that  the  maintenance  of  the  works  sought 
to  be  erected  shall  be  conditional  at  all  times  upon  compliance  with  all  regulations 
imposed  by  the  Secretary  of  War  of  the  United  States  of  America  from  time  to  time 
for  the  preservation  of  the  levels  of  Lake  Champlain. 

All  of  which  is  respectfully  submitted. 

O.  II.  Ernst, 

Brigadier  General,  United  States  Army,  Retired, 

Chairman,  American  Section. 

George  Clinton, 

Member. 

E.  E.  Haskell, 

Member. 

Geo.  C.  Gibbons, 
Chairman,  Canadian  Section. 

W.  F.  King, 

Member. 

Louis  Coste, 

Member. 


INTERNATIONAL  WATERWAYS  COMMISSION  PROCURESS  REPORT.  67 

APPENDIX  1. 

Report  upon  the  (.'hicago  Drainage  ('anal,  by  the  Commission,  January  4,  1907. 

International  Waterways  Commission, 

Toronto,  Ontario,  January  4,  1907 . 

The  honorable  Secretary  op’  War  of  the  United  States  and  the  honorable  Minis¬ 
ter  OF  Public  Works  of  Canada: 

The  International  Waterways  Commission  has  the  honor  to  submit  the  following 
report  upon  the  Chicago  Drainage  ('anal: 

1.  The  headwaters  of  the  Illinois  River,  an  important  tributary  of  the  Mississippi, 
approach  within  10  miles  of  Lake  Michigan  near  its  southerly  end,  where  stands 
Chicago.  The  river,  called  here  the  Des  Plaines,  is  separated  from  the  lake  by  a  low 
and  narrow  divide  running  nearly  north  and  south.  In  the  divide  are  two  depressions, 
about  8  miles  apart,  in  which  the  height  is  only  about  10  feet  above  the  surface  of  the 
lake.  The  area  eastward  of  the  divide  is  drained  by  two  streams,  the  Chicago  and 
the  Calumet  Rivers,  which  em})ty  into  Lake  Michigan. 

The  city  of  Chicago  was  originally  built  on  the  Chicago  River  and,  although  it  is 
now  spreading  into  the  Calumet  region,  it  was  for  many  years  drained  exclusively  by 
the  Chicago  River,  and  its  princi])al  parts  are  now  so  drained.  This  river  constitutes 
the  main  sewer  of  (.'hicago.  The  lake  furnishes  the  city’s  water  supply.  To  prevent 
the  pollution  of  the  water  suy)})ly  by  sewage  has  always  been  the  most  iiuportant 
municipal  problem  with  which  Chicago  has  had  to  deal.  Its  solution  has  from  a  very 
(  early  day  been  found  in  diverting  a  part  of  the  river’s  flow  into  the  valley  of  the  Des 
Plaines  through  the  most  northerly  of  the  two  depressions  mentioned  above.  The 
Illinois  and  Michigan  Canal,  which  was  opened  to  navigation  in  1848,  was  at  once 
utilized  for  this  pur})ose,  and  all  subsequent  improvements  consisted  in  efforts  to  force 
more  sewage  through  that  canal  until,  in  1889,  it  was  decided  to  build  a  new  and 
greatly  enlarged  channel  which  should  completely  divert  the  ('hicago  Ri^  er  from 
Lake  Michigan  and  draw  from  that  lake  a  body  of  pure  water  large  enough  to  make 
the  sewage  inoffensive  to  the  communities  by  whose  doors  it  must  pass. 

2.  Before  embarking  upon  this  work  the  city  in  1886  appointed  a  commission  of 
three  engineers  “to  consider  and  report  on  any  and  all  things  which  relate  to  the 
matter  of  water  supjdy  and  drainage  of  the  city  of  Chicago.”  In  January,  1887,  the 
commission  submitted  a  report  to  the  mayor  and  city  council  of  Chicago  (copy  appended 
marked  U),  which  it  styled  a  preliminary  report.  It  intended  to  submit  an  additional 
or  final  report  in  which  the  data  upon  which  its  conclusions  were  based  should  be 
given  in  greater  detail,  but  such  additional  report  was  never  submitted.  After 
remarking  that  “almost  every  conceivable  way  of  dealing  with  these  questions  had 
been  suggested  and  in  some  form  applied  during  the  past  thirty  years,  ”  the  comm  ission 
stated  that  ‘  ‘among  the  possible  methods  of  getting  rid  of  the  Chicago  sewage  there  are 
but  three  that  have  been  deemed  worthy  of  consideration,  namely,  a  discharge  into 
Lake  Michigan,  a  disposal  upon  land,  and  a  discharge  into  the  main  river.”  It  con¬ 
sidered  the  first  method  too  expensive,  involving  as  it  does  a  wide  separation  between 
the  outlets  of  the  sewers  and  the  intakes  of  the  water  supply.  It  pronounced  the 
second  inapplicable  to  the  metropolitan  district  as  a  whole,  under  the  topographical 
conditions  existing,  but  thought  that  it  might  be  employed  for  the  extreme  northern 
and  southern  parts,  the  latter  including  the  Calumet  region.  It  recommended  the 
third  method.  It  was  uncertain  as  to  the  quantity  of  water  required  to  dilute  the 
sewage  so  as  to  make  it  inoffensive,  but  in  order  to  prepare  an  estimate  of  cost  it  was 
compelled  to  assume  some  approximate  size  of  channel,  and  it  did  assume  a  size  large 
enough  to  discharge  600,000  cubic  feet  per  minute,  that  being  the  estimated  amount 
of  water  falling  u])on  the  area  tributary  to  the  canal  during  storms  and  not  otherwise 
disposed  of.  It  includes  the  drainage  basins  of  the  upper  Des  Plaines  and  of  the 
Chicago  Rivers,  but  not  that  of  the  Calumet  River.  With  a  channel  of  less  dimensions 
in  times  of  storms  and  floods  the  Chicago  River  would  not  be  fully  diverted  into  the 
Des  Plaines,  but  would  back  up  into  Lake  Michigan.  The  result  was  a  supply  of 
24,000  cubic  feet  per  minute  for  each  100,000  people  in  a  population  of  2,500,000,  the 
population  which  the  commission  thought  it  desirable  to  provide  for,  and  the  opinion 
was  expressed  that  this  would  equal  the  maximum  requirements. 

3.  Following  this  report  the  Illinois  Legislature  passed  an  act  approvedMay  29,  188J, 
‘  ‘to  create  a  sanitary  district  and  to  remove  obstructions  in  the  Des  Plaines  and  Illinois 
Rivers,”  of  which  the  twenty-third  and  twenty-fourth  paragraphs  read  as  follows,  viz: 

‘  ‘Paragraiih  23.  If  any  channel  is  constructed  under  the  provisions  hereof  by  ireans 
of  which  any  of  the  waters  of  Lake  Michigan  shall  be  caused  to  pass  into  the  Des 
Plaines  or  Illinois  Rivers,  such  channel  shall  be  constructed  of  sufficient  size  and 
capacity  to  produce  and  maintain  at  all  times  a  continuous  flow  of  not  less  than 


68  INTERNATIONAL  WATERWAYS  COMMISSION  PROGRESS  REPORT. 


300,000  cubic  feet  of  water  per  minute,  and  to  be  of  a  depth  of  not  less  than  14  feet, 
and  a  current  not  exceeding  3  miles  per  hour,  and  if  any  portion  of  any  such 
channel  shall  be  cut  through  a  territory  with  a  rocky  stratum  where  such  rocky 
stratum  is  above  a  grade  sufficient  to  produce  a  depth  of  water  from  Lake  Michigan 
of  not  less  than  18  feet,  such  portion  of  said  channel  shall  have  double  the  flowing 
capacity  above  provided  for,  and  a  width  of  not  less  than  160  feet  at  the  bottom 
capable  of  producing  a  depth  of  not  less  than  18  feet  of  water.  If  the  population  of 
the  district  draining  into  such  channel  shall  at  any  time  exceed  1,500,000,  such 
channel  shall  be  made  and  kept  of  such  size  and  in  such  condition  that  it  will  pro¬ 
duce  and  maintain  at  all  times  a  continuous  flow  of  not  less  than  20,000  cubic  feet  of 
water  per  minute  for  each  100,000  of  the  population  of  such  district,  at  a  current  of 
not  more  than  3  miles  per  hour,  and  if  at  any  time  the  General  Government  shall 
improve  the  Des  Plaines  or  Illinois  Rivers,  so  that  the  same  shall  be  capable  of 
receiving  a  flow  of  600,000  cubic  feet  of  water  per  minute,  or  more,  from  said  channel, 
and  shall  provide  for  the  payment  of  all  damages  which  any  extra  flow  above 
300,000  cubic  feet  of  water  per  minute  from  such  channel  may  cause  to  private  prop¬ 
erty  so  as  to  save  harmless  the  said  district  from  all  liability  therefrom,  then  such 
sanitary  district  shall,  within  one  year  thereafter,  enlarge  the  entire  channel  leading 
into  said  Des  Plaines  or  Illinois  Rivers  from  said  district  to  a  sufficient  size  and 
capacity  to  produce  and  maintain  a  continuous  flow  throughout  the  same  of  not  less 
than  600,000  cubic  feet  of  water  per  minute,  with  a  current  of  not  more  than  3  miles 
per  hour,  and  such  channel  shall  be  constructed  upon  such  grade  as  to  be  capable  of 
producing  a  depth  of  water  of  not  less  than  18  feet  throughout  said  channel,  and  shall 
have  a  width  of  not  less  than  160  feet  at  the  bottom.  In  case  a  channel  is  con¬ 
structed  in  the  Des  Plaines  River,  as  contemplated  in  this  section,  it  shall  be  carried 
down  the  slope  between  Lockport  and  Joliet  to  the  pool,  commonly  known  as 
the  upper  basin,  of  sufficient  width  and  depth  to  carry  off  the  water  the  channel 
shall  bring  down  from  above.  The  district  constructing  a  channel  to  carry  water 
from  Lake  Michigan  of  any  amount  authorized  by  this  act  may  correct,  modify,  and 
remove  obstructions  in  the  Des  Plaines  and  Illinois  Rivers  wherever  it  shall  be 
necessary  so  to  do  to  prevent  overflow  or  damage  along  said  rivers,  and  shall  remove 
the  dams  at  Henry  and  Copperas  Creek,  in  the  Illinois  River,  before  any  water  shall 
be  turned  into  the  said  channel.  And  the  canal  commissioners,  if  they  shall  find  at 
any  time  that  an  additional  supply  cf  water  has  been  added  to  either  of  said  rivers  by 
hny  drainage  district  or  districts,  to  maintain  a  depth  of  not  less  than  6  feet  from  any 
dam  owned  by  the  State  to  and  into  the  first  lock  of  the  Illinois  and  Michigan  Canal 
at  La  Salle,  without  the  aid  of  any  such  dam,  at  low  water,  then  it  shall  be  the  duty 
of  said  canal  commissioners  to  cause  such  dam  or  dams  to  be  removed.  This  act 
shall  not  be  construed  to  authorize  the  injury  or  destruction  of  existing  water-power 
rights. 

“Paragraph  24.  M^hen  such  channel  shall  be  Completed,  and  the  water  turned 
therein,  to  the  amount  of  300,000  cubic  feet  of  water  per  minute,  the  same  is  hereby 
declared  a  navigable  stream,  and  whenever  the  General  Government  shall  improve 
the  Des  Plaines  and  Illinois  Rivers  for  navigation,  to  connect  with  this  channel,  said 
General  Goyernment  shall  have  full  control  over  the  same  for  navigation  purposes, 
but  not  to  interfere  with  its  control  for  sanitary  or  drainage  purposes.” 

By  this  act  a  flow  of  not  less  than  20,000  cubic  feet  per  minute  is  required  for  each 
100,000  inhabitants  and  provision  is  made  for  a  population  of  3,000,000.  The  evi¬ 
dence  before  the  legislative  committee  which  framed  the  bill  as  to  the  quantity 
required  was  contradictory.  The  amount  fixed  for  dilution  of  the  sewage  was  a  mini¬ 
mum.  (See  Appendix  I  2.) 

4.  Under  this  act  the  Sanitary  District  of  Chicago  was  organized,  embracing  all  of 
the  city  north  of  Eighty-seventh  Street  and  some  43  square  miles  of  Cook  County 
outside  of  the  city  limits.  The  total  area  of  the  district  was  185  square  miles,  and  did 
not  include  the  Calumet  region  nor  the  north  shore.  The  trustees  held  their  first 
meeting  January  18,  1890.  The  Chicago  Drainage  Canal  was  then  constructed,  water 
being  turned  into  it  for  the  first  time  in  January,  1900.  It  was  not  then,  and  has  not 
since  been,  completed  to  its  full  capacity  as  designed.  In  places  where  the  excavation 
was  in  rock  the  full  dimensions  of  the  prism  were  taken  out,  but  in  earth  a  considerable 
volume  was  left  to  be  removed  by  the  easy  method  of  dredging  hereafter.  When  fully 
completed  it  was  designed  to  have  a  capacity  of  600,000  cubic  feet  per  minute,  or  10,000 
cubic  feet  per  seconcl,  flowing  at  a  velocity  of  1.25  miles  per  hour  in  earth  and  1.9 
miles  per  hour  in  rock. 

5.  The  canal  is  28.05  miles  in  length.  For  a  distance  of  7.8  miles  from  its  junction 
with  the  Chicago  River  at  Robey  Street  its  dimensions  are  110  feet  width  at  bottom, 
side  slopes  1  on  2,  depth  of  water  22  feet  at  low  stage  of  Lake  Michigan,  with  a  grade  of 
1  in  40,000,  the  material  being  earth.  This  section  is  eventually  to  have  a  width  of 
200  feet  at  bottom. 


INTERNATIONAL  WATERWAYS  COMMISSION  PROGRESS  REPORT.  69 


6.  For  a  farther  distance  of  5.3  miles,  although  the  material  is  principally  earth, 

*:  the  dimensions  are  202  feet  width  at  bottom,  side  slopes  1  on  2,  minimum  depth  of 
I  water  22  feet,  with  a  grade  of  1  in  40,000.  This  section  is  completed, 
i  7.  For  the  remaining  15.95  miles  the  canal  is  excavated  wliolly  or  partially  in  rock. 
Wliere  the  natural  rock  does  not  come  to  the  surface  walls  of  masonry  have  been  built 
upon  the  rock  surface,  thus  artificially  carrying  it  to  a  height  5  feet  above  datum. 

•  The  dimensions  here  are  160  feet  width  at  bottom,  162  feet  width  at  top,  minimum 
depth  of'water  22  feet,  with  a  grade  of  1  in  20,000.  This  section  also  is  completed. 

8.  The  controlling  works  are  situated  near  the  town  of  Lockport  at  the  western 
'  end  of  the  canal.  They  consist  of  a  bear-trap  dam  160  feet  wide,  with  a  vertical  play 

of  17  feet,  and  of  seven  sluice  gates  of  the  Stoney  type,  each  30  feet  wide  and  having 
a  vertical  play  of  20  feet.  These  works  provide  a  very  efficient  means  of  controlling 
the  flow  of  water  through  the  canal. 

9.  The  project  of  the  sanitary  district  for  the  disposal  of  sewage  by  the  canal 
'  when  completed  is  briefly  as  follows;  All  sewers  will  discharge  into  the  Chicago 

River,  either  directly  or  through  intercepting  sewers.  From  the  mouth  in  Lake 
f  Michigan  to  the  point  where  the  North  and  South  Branches  unite  the  river  will  flow 
8,000  cubic  feet  per  second,  less  such  quantity  as  may  be  pumped  into  the  upper  por- 
'  tion  of  the  North  Branch,  which  under  the  original  project  was  200  cubic  feet  per 
second  admitted  through  a  conduit  at  PTillerton  Avenue.  From  this  point  the  com¬ 
bined  flow  will  be  8,000  cubic  feet  to  the  point  where  the  South  P'ork  enters  the  South 
Branch,  where  it  will  be  increased  to  10,000  cubic  feet  by  water  pumped  from  Lake 
'  Michigan  at  Thirty-ninth  Street  and  flowing  through  a  large  conduit  in  Thirty-ninth 
Street  to  the  South  Fork.  The  volume  which  will  finally  enter  the  canal  under  this 
i  project  will  be  10,000  cubic  feet  per  second. 

]  10.  The  channel  of  the  Chicago  River  is  not  large  enough  to  transmit  that  volume 

from  the  lake  to  the  canal  except  at  velocities  which  are  an  obstruction  to  navigation. 

J  The  amount  which  the  Secretary  of  War  has  thus  far  permitted  the  sanitary  district 
to  pass  through  the  river  is  4,167  cubic  feet  per  second.  In  order  to  obtain  authority 
for  a  larger  amount  the  trustees  have  undertaken  to  enlarge  the  channel  of  the  river 
and  have  accomplished  a  large  amount  of  work  in  that  direction. 

11.  By  act  of  the  Illinois  Legislature  in  1903  the  sanitary  district  was  enlarged  by 

annexing  thereto  the  north  shore  district,  containing  78.6  square  miles,  and  the  Calu¬ 
met  district,  containing  94.48  square  miles.  The  total  area  of  the  sanitary  district 
is  therefore  now  358.08  square  miles.  The  same  legislature  authorized  the  develop¬ 
ment  of  the  water  power  created  by  the  diversion.  ^  •  r 

12.  The  plans  for  the  north  shore  region  involve  two  additional  conduits  from  the 
lake  to  the  North  Branch  of  the  Chicago  River,  one  at  Lawrence  Avenue,  into  which 
583  cubic  feet  per  second,  and  one  at  Wilmette,  into  which  1,000  cubic  feet  per  second, 
are  to  be  pumped.  As  this  water  is  to  form  a  part  of  the  10,000  cubic  feet  originally 
to  be  taken  out  through  that  river,  it  does  not  add  to  the  amount  of  water  to  be  taken 
from  Lake  Michigan. 

13.  The  plans  for  the  Calumet  region  involve  a  treatment  of  the  Calumet  River 
similar  to  that  of  the  Chicago  River.  The  river  is  to  be  diverted  into  the  Des  Plaines 
Valley.  For  this  purpose  a  new  channel  is  to  be  cut  through  the  southerly  depres- 

’  sion  in  the  divide,  and  to  join  the  present  drainage  canal  at  Sag,  about  11  miles  from 
the  controlling  works  at  Lockport.  From  Sag  to  Lockport  the  drainage^  canal  must 
carry  the  flow  from  the  Calumet  River  in  addition  to  that  from  the  Chicago  River. 

*  It  was  designed  to  accommodate  the  latter  river  alone,  or  10,000  cubic  feet  })er  second, 

[but  improved  methods  of  excavation,  particularly  channeling  in  rock,  gave  it  a  greater 
capacity  than  was  computed;  and  the  hydraulic  formulae  with  which  its  dimensions 
were  figured,  being  adapted  to  smaller  streams,  gave  results  which  proved  to  be  too 
large.  It  is  fouiKrthat  the  portion  completed  in  rock,  which  includes  the  reach  from 
Sag  to  Lockport,  will  carrv  an  amount  stated  by  the  chief  engineer  to  be  14,000  cubic 
feet  per  second.  The  difference,  4,000  cubic  feet  per  second,  is  the  amount  which 
it  is  proposed  to  divert  from  the  Calumet  River.  For  this  purpose  it  is  proposed  to 
excavate  a  channel  having  in  earth  a  bottom  width  of  72  feet,  with  side  slopes  3  on 
5,  and  in  rock  a  bottom  width  of  90  feet  with  vertical  sides,  the  depth  iii  both  cases 

to  be  25  feet.  ,  .  i  .uu 

14.  Work  in  the  territory  annexed  in  1903  has  been  limited  to  surveys,  and  the 

preparation  of  plans,  and  the  expenditures  in  that  territory  have  been  small.  The 
*  amount  expended  upon  the  drainage  canal  and  accessory  works,  including  the  above, 

.  to  December  31,  1905,  is  .$40,873,629.71;  in  addition  to  which  $1,556,226.56  has  been 
^  expended  for  the  development  of  water  power  and  .$7,290,101.27  has  been  paid  out 
for  interest.  For  a  financial  statement  more  in  detail,  see  Appendix  I3, 

15.  Although  the  primary  object  of  the  Chicago  Drainage  Canal  was  the  discharge 
*•  of  Chicago  sewage  its  function  as  a  channel  for  navigation  was  kept  in  view  from  the 


70  INTERNATIONAL  WATERWAYS  COMMISSION  PROGRESS  REPORT. 

m 

beginning.  All  of  the  bridges  over  it  are  drawbridges  "with  ample  openings.  A 
provision  of  this  kind,  as  well  as  the  care  exercised  to  make  the  sewage  inoffensive 
by  liberal  dilution,  was  necessary  to  conciliate  the  interests  in  the  valley  of  the  Des 
Plaines  and  Illinois  Rivers,  which  would  otherwise  be  adversely  affected.  It  can 
hardly  be  doubted  that  the  canal  will  eventually  form  a  part  of  an  improved  waterway 
between  the  Great  Lakes  and  the  Mississippi  River,  though  its  full  depth  will  probably 
not  be  required  for  that  purpose.  Congress  has  not  adopted  any  scheme  for  this 
improvement,  but  by  its  direction  a  survey  was  made,  and  plans  with  estimates 
for  a  waterway  14  feet  deep  were  submitted,  by  a  board  of  engineers  in  a  report  dated 
August  26,  1905.  The  board  found  that  for  a  distance  of  about  100  miles  from  Chicago 
the  improvement  must  be  with  locks  and  dams,  and  as  the  quantity  of  w^ater  required 
would  be  merely  that  needed  for  the  service  of  locks  and  other  incidentals,  the  extent 
of  the  improvement  or  depth  which  could  be  obtained  in  that  part  of  the  route  was 
without  limit  so  far  as  it  depended  upon  the  amount  of  water  available.  For  the 
remaining  distance,  about  223  miles,  the  improvement  would  be  an  enlargement 
of  the  open  channel  and  the  degree  to  which  it  was  practicable  was  entirely  dependent 
upon  the  quantity  of  water  flowing.  The  board  assumed  that  the  Chicago  Drainage 
Canal  would  eventually  be  permitted  to  take  10,000  cubic  feet  per  second  from  Lake 
Michigan,  and  it  expressed  the  opinion  that  with  that  volume  added  to  the  natural 
low-water  discharge  of  the  Illinois  River  a  depth  of  14  feet  in  the  open  channel  could 
be  maintained;  also  that  if  a  much  greater  depth  was  to  be  secured  a  much  larger 
volume  of  water  must  be  taken  from  Lake  Michigan. 

16.  In  the  neighborhood  of  Lockport  the  natural  level  of  the  ground  falls  aw’ay 
rapidly  and  excellent  facilities  are  found  for  the  development  of  water  power.  Under 
the^  kState  legislation  of  1903  the  sanitary  district  is  now  engaged  in  utilizing  this 
incidental  advantage  of  the  drainage  canal.  The  plans  provide  for  an  extension  of 
the  canal  10,700  feet  between  concrete  walls  and  earth  and  rock  embankments  to 
the  site  selected  for  the  power  house  and  for  the  excavation  of  a  tail  race  6,800  feet 
long,  160  feet  wide,  and  22  feet  deep.  If  the  maximum  quantity  of  water  which 
the  sanitary  district  now  claims  to  be  necessary  for  sanitary  purposes — 14,000  feet 
per  second— be  utilized  it  will  be  possible  to  dpelop  about  40,000  electrical  horse¬ 
power  under  a  head  of  34  feet.  With  10,000  cubic  feet  per  second  about  28,000  horse¬ 
power  can  be  developed.  A  power  house  is  being  erected  which  will  accommodate 
8  turbines,  each  capable  of  generating  5,000  horsepower. 

17 .  The  sanitary  district  has  acquired  land  on  both  sides  of  the  canal  throughout 
its  length,  the  width  of  the  strips  varying  from  200  to  800  feet.  This  land  is  offered 
to  manufacturers  at  moderate  prices,  and  it  seems  probable  that  they  will  in  the 
course  of  time  be  attracted  thereto,  particularly  after  arrangements  for  furnishing 
them  with  cheap  power  from  Lockport  are  completed. 

18.  The  diversion  of  large  bodies  of  water  from  Lake  Michigan  for  supplying  the 
drainage  canal  has  not  been  authorized  by  Congress.  The  plans  of  the  sanitary 
district,  except  those  for  the  enlargement  of  the  Chicago  River,  have  not  been  sub¬ 
mitted  to  any  Federal  authority  for  approval.  It  was  only  after  the  opening  of  the 
canal  that  application  was  made  to  the  Secretary  of  War  for  permission  to  divert  the 
quantity  of  water  required  by  the  State  law.  The  secretary  granted  permission 
for  such  quantity  as  would  pass  through  Chicago  River  without  detriment  to  naviga¬ 
tion,  a  quantity  considerably  less  than  that  required  by  the  State  law\  After  experi¬ 
menting  with  various  amounts  it  was  fixed  at  250,000  cubic  feet  per  minute,  or  4,167 
cubic  feet  per  second,  and  that  is  the  amount  now  authorized.  It  is  “subject  to 
such  modification  as,  in  the  opinion  of  the  Secretary  of  War,  the  public  interests 
may  from  time  to  tune  require.  ”  Copies  of  all  the  permits  granted  by  the  Secretary 
of  War  in  this  connection  will  be  found  in  Appendix  I4. 

19.  In  the  expenditure  of  $40,000,000  for  the  drainage  canal  the  people  of  Chicago,, 
with  its  population  of  2,000,000,  incurred  a  burden  equivalent  to  that  due  to  an 
expenditure  of  $1,600,000,000  by  the  United  States,  with  its  population  of  80,000,000 — 
that  is,  enough  to  build  eight  or  more  Panama  canals.  It  w'as  a  very  serious  effort 
and  has  commanded  the  admiration  and  sympathy  of  all  observers.  The  diversion 
of  10,000  cubic  feet  per  second  from  Lake  Michigan  affects  other  interests  adversely, 
but  these  interests  have  withheld  their  opposition,  seeming  to  believe  that  some 
such  amount  was  necessary,  and  apparently  willing  to  contribute  their  share  to  pro¬ 
tect  the  lives  and  health  of  the  peo])le  of  a  great  city.  The  plans  calling  for  that 
amount  have  been  under  public  discussion  for  some  years.  Although  withholding 
fornial  approval,  the  Federal  authorities  have  taken  no  steps  to  prevent  their  exe¬ 
cution.  Congress  has  called  for  a  plan  and  estimates  for  an  improvement  of  the 
waterways  connecting  with  it,  the  scope  of  which  is  fixed  by  that  amount.  There 
appears  to  be  a  tacit  general  agreement  that  Chicago  needs  or  will  need  about  10,000 
cubic  feet  of  water  per  second  for  sanitary  purposes  and  that  the  city  should  have 
it  without  further  question. 


Ii  INTERNATIONAL  WATERWAYS  COMMISSION  PROGRESS  REPORT.  71 

20.  It  was  not  generally  known  until  after  the  publication  in  March  last  of  the 
t  report  of  the  American  section  of  this  commission  upon  Niagara  Falls  that  an  amount 
i'  greater  than  10,000  cubic  feet  per  second  would  be  asked  for.  In  that  report,  subse- 
[;  quently  concurred  in  by  the  Canadian  section,  it  was  recommended  that  the  diversion 
r  of  10,000  cubic  feet  be  allowed.  The  preservation  of  Niagara  Falls  alone  was  con¬ 
sidered,  and  that  in  the  light  of  the  tacit  agreement  above  described.  It  was  sup¬ 
posed  at  the  time  that  this  was  all  that  Chicago  needed,  but  the  recommendation  gave 
offense  to  the  officials  of  the  sanitary  district,  and  the  further  demand  then  came 
out  in  the  form  of  appeals  to  the  committees  of  Congress  and  to  the  Secretary  of  State. 
'  It  is  necessary  now  to  take  up  the  question  anew,  and,  after  cons^ering  it  in  all  its 

bearings,  to  reach  some  conclusion  as  to  whether  there  should  be  a  lirnit  to  the  amount 
of  water ’to  be  diverted  at  Chicago,  and,  if  so,  as  to  what  that  limit  is. 

21.  That  the  abstraction  of  water  from  Lake  Michigan  has  a  tendency  to  lower  the 
level  of  that  lake  and  of  all  the  waters  to  which  it  is  tributary  is  self-evident;  but  the 
■  exact  effect  of  abstracting  a  given  amount  can  be  ascertained  only  from  prolonged 
observation  of  the  natural  outlets  under  the  varying  conditions  to  which  they  are 
subjected  during  a  series  of  years.  An  elaborate  investigation  of  this  subject  was  made 
under  the  office  of  the  United  States  Lake  Survey  in  Detroit,  the  results  of  which  were 
1  published  in  the  annual  reports  of  the  Chief  of  Engineers  for  1900,  page  5401;  for  1902, 

r  pages  2779  and  2825;  and  for  1904,  page  4120.  Further  observations  are  needed  to  be 

made  when  the  difference  of  level  between  Lake  Erie  and  Lake  Huron  is  greater  or 
less  than  when  the  existing  observations  were  made,  but  the  results  obtained  from  the 
'  latter  are  believed  to  be  reliable  within  one-tenth  of  a  foot.  The  amounts  by  which 

the  mean  level,  as  derived  from  observations  of  the  last  46  years,  of  the  various  waters 
i  will  be  lowered  by  a  discharge  of  10,000  and  also  by  14,000  cubic  feet  per  second  are 

'  given  in  the  following  table: 


Location. 

Water  level  lowered 
by  diversion  at  Chi¬ 
cago  of — 

10,000  cubic 
feet  per 
second. 

14,000  cubic 
feet  per 
second. 

Foot. 

0.52 

.45 

.45 

.35 

.40 

Foot. 

0.70 

.64 

.64 

.49 

.56 

From  this  table  it  appears  that  all  the  waters,  including  Lakes  Michigan  and  Huron, 
Lake  St.  Clair,  Lake  Erie,  Lake  Ontario,  and  the  St.  Lawrence  River,  besides  the 
important  connecting  channels,  the  Detroit  and  St.  Clair  Rivers,  will  be  lowered  by 
’  amounts  varying  from  4^  to  6^  inches  for  10,000  cubic  feet  and  from  6  to  8^  inches  for 
14  000  cubic  feet  per  second.  The  length  of  time  required  to  produce  this  effect  is 
about  5  years;  about  half  of  it  will  be  produced  at  the  end  of  18  months.  The  above 
■  figures  give  the  effect  at  average  level;  they  are  much  more  considerable  during  low- 

water  periods.  •  ,  i  u  t 

22.  Variations  in  the  level  of  the  lakes’  surface,  due  to  winds  and  to  change  oi 
barometric  pressure,  are  frequent  and  irregular  and  at  times  violent,  \ariations  of 
more  than  6  inches  are  very  common,  often  occurring  hourly  for  many  hours  in  suc- 

*  cession,  while  variations  of  2  or  3  feet  within  an  hour  are  not  uncommon.  Besides 

these  irregular  variations  there  is  a  regular  annual  variation  due  to  difference  in  raiii- 

,  fall,  evaporation,  and  run-off,  the  water  level  being  highest  in  midsummer  and  lowest 

in  midwinter.  The  levels  are  affected  also  by  the  greater  or  less  severity  of  the  winter 
and  the  consequent  greater  or  less  decrease  in  the  discharging  capacity  of  the  outlets 
by  ice.  In  order  to  study  the  annual  oscillations  it  is  necessary  to  eliminate  the 
irregular  oscillations,  and  that  is  accomplished  by  using  the  average  levels  for  a  month. 
Using  the  monthlv  mean  levels  it  is  found  that  the  regular  fluctuation  in  Lake  Huron- 

*  Michigan  usually  does  not  exceed  2  feet  in  any  one  year,  but  in  a  long  series  of  years 

there  is  a  great  difference  in  the  height  to  which  high  water  will  rise.  highest 

hi"h  water  (monthly  mean)  recorded  for  that  lake  was  in  June,  1886,  and  the  lowest 
high  water  in  June,  1896,  the  difference  between  the  two  being  over  3^  feet.  The  first 

‘  is  what  navigators  of  the  Great  Lakes  call  a  high-water  year  and  the  second  a  low-water 

year. 


72  INTEKNATIONAL  WATERWAYS  COMMISSION  PEOGEESS  EEPOET. 

23.  It  is  evident  that  the  average  level  of  the  lake  may  be  lowered  considerably 
without  the  change  becoming  immediately  apparent,  and  that  fact  has  been  used  as  an 
argument  to  prove  that  the  lowering  caused  by  the  Chicago  Drainage  Canal  is  of  no 
consequence  to  those  interested  in  navigation.  Since  they  can  not  see  it  they  will  not 
know  it  and  will  not  feel  it.  The  argument  is  fallacious.  It  is  true  that  they  can  not 
see  it  immediately,  but  they  will  soon  feel  it  and  will  know  it  through  the  most  costly 
ineans  of  acquiring  knowledge— the  injury  to  their  material  interests.  The  oscilla¬ 
tions  will  remain  the  same  as  before,  but  low  water  will  fall  lower  and  high  water  will 
rise  less  high.  The  average  draft  of  vessels  must  be  diminished  by  the  amount  that 
the  average  level  is  lowered  unless  the  depth  be  restored  by  remedial  works. 

24.  The  most  important  lake  trafhc  is  now  carried  on  in  large  freight  carriers  which 
are  loaded  down  to  the  greatest  draft  that  can  be  carried  into  the  harbors  or  through  the 
channels  between  the  lakes.  With  the  depth  now  available  they  are  usually  loaded  to 
a  draft  of  about  19  feet,  but  careful  watch  is  kept  on  the  stage  of  the  waterways  and 
advantage  is  taken  of  any  temporary  increase  of  stage  to  load  the  vessels  deeper.  In 
the  modern  vessel  each  inch  of  increased  draft  adds  about  50  tons  to  the  carrying 
capacity.  To  lower  the  water  surface  6  inches  is  to  reduce  the  capacity  of  the  vessel 
about  300  tons.  If  the  freight  rate  on  iron  ore  be  taken  at  55  cents  per  ton,  exclusive 
of  the  cost  of  loading  and  unloading,  and  the  number  of  trips  during  the  season  at  22, 
there  appears  a  loss  of  over  $3,600  for  the  season  for  each  vessel.  The  number  of  ves¬ 
sels  navigating  the  Great  Lakes  which  draw  19  feet  or  more  is  417,  and  their  tonnage  is 
1,541,414  tons,  which  is  about  three-quarters  of  the  total  tonnage  of  the  Great  Lakes. 
It  is  a  conservative  estimate  that  the  loss  to  the  navigation  interests  resulting  from  a 
reduction  of  6  inches  in  the  depth  of  water  is  $1,500,000  per  annum,  which,  capitalized 
at  4  per  cent,  amounts  to  a  loss  of  $37,500,000.  With  a  greater  reduction  of  depth  the 
resulting  loss  would  be  proportionately  greater.  The  number  of  deep-draft  vessels  and 
the  share  of  lake  traffic  which  they  carry  is  increasing  each  year,  while  the  lake  traffic 
itself  is  increasing  with  marvelous  rapidity.  The  total  number  of  tons  of  freight 
which  passed  through  Detroit  River  in  1905  was  about  58,000,000,  valued  at  about 
$615,000,000.  The  records  for  the  year  1906,  so  far  as  they  are  made  up,  indicate  that 
the  number  of  tons  which  passed  through  the  Detroit  River  in  1906  exceeded  65,000,- 
000,  valued  at  $690,000,000.  The  loss  wdll  be  even  greater  in  the  future  than  it  is  now 
It  is  quite  certain  that  the  loss  will  not  pass  unnoticed,  and  that  the  Governments  will 
be  compelled  to  restore  the  depth  either  by  additional  excavations  or  by  regulating 
works. 

25.  Careful  estimates  have  been  made  of  the  cost  of  deepening  the  channels  between 
the  lakes  1  foot.  To  deepen  the  Detroit  River  is  estimated  to  cost  $4,115,430.  In 
Lake  St.  Clair  the  full  depth  of  the  lake  is  now  utilized,  and  any  lowering  of  its  surface 
involves  the  excavation  of  an  artificial  channel  entirely  across  the  lake,  a  distance  of  18 
miles,  of  which  it  has  been  necessary  heretofore  to  artificially  deepen  only  one- third. 
To  deepen  the  channel  here  and  at  certain  shoal  places  in  St.  Clair  River  and  at  the 
foot  of  Lake  Huron  is  estimated  to  cost  $1,080,720.  It  results  in  replacing  open  lake 
navigation  by  canal  navigation  for  a  distance  of  12  miles  in  Lake  St.  Clair,  a  decided 
disadvantage. 

26.  The  data  are  not  at  hand  for  an  accurate  estimate  of  the  cost  of  restoring  the 
depths  in  the  harbors  of  the  Great  Lakes,  but  an  approximation  may  be  reached  from 
a  consideration  of  the  cost  of  improvements  heretofore  made.  The  depth  to  be  gained 
being  small,  the  cost  will  not  vary  largely,  whether  that  gciin  be  a  few  inches  more  or 
less.  The  United  States  has  improved  35  harbors  on  Lakes  Michigan,  Huron,  and 
Erie,  and  has  expended  thereon  about  $20,000,090,  of  which  about  one-quarter  was 
for  maintenance.  The  average  increase  of  depth  is  10  feet  and  the  cost  per  foot  of 
increase  was  therefore  about  $1,500,000,  but  as  the  cost  of  a  small  increase  would  be 
much  greater  per  foot  than  an  increase  of  10  feet,  and  as  several  harbors  on  Lake 
Ontario  are  to  be  added,  the  cost  per  foot  in  this  case  would  probably  be  not  less  than 
$2,000,000  for  harbors  in  the  United  States.  The  Canadian  Government  has  improved 
over  50  harbors  on  Georgian  Bay,  Lakes  Huron,  St.  Clair,  Erie,  and  Ontario.  A  large 
amount,  say  $3,000,000,  must  be  added  for  increasing  the  depth  of  these  harbors. 

27.  The  depth  in  the  Welland  Canal  and  in  the  six  canals  employed  to  overcome 
rapids  in  the  St.  Lawrence  River  is  now  14  feet,  of  which  everv  inch  is  needed.  At 
the  head  of  the  Cornwall  aanxl  in  the  St.  Lawrence  River  the  abstraction  of  14,000 
cubic  feet  of  water  per  second  at  Chicago  will  lower  the  surface  about  6f  inches  at 
mean  level  and  much  more  at  low  water.  To  restore  the  depth  in  these  canals  involves 
the  reconstruction  of  all  the  end  locks  and  deepening  the  approaches  thereto  and  is 
estimated  to  cost  $2,500,000. 

28.  The  total  cost  of  restoring  the  depth  in  the  harbors  of  the  Great  Lakes  and  the 
channels  between  the  lakes  is  therefore  roughlv  $10,000,000,  and  of  restoring  it  in  the 
Welland  and  St.  Lawrence  Canals  is  $2,500,000  additional,  or  $12,500,000  in  all. 


“  INTERNATIONAL  WATERWAYS  COMMISSION  PROGRESS  REPORT.  73 

29.  The  shores  of  the  Great  Lakes  are  very  far  from  being  fully  developed,  and  it  is 
highly  probable  that  many  harbors  not  now  in  existence  remain  to  be  created,  or  if  in 

!  existence  remain  to  be  im])roved.  The  lowering  of  the  lakes’  surface  increase  the 
<lifficnlty  and  cost  of  such  improvements.  This  consideration  is  of  importance, 
although  no  money  value  can  now  be  given  it. 

30.  The  expenditure  of  the  sums  mentioned  above  will  restore  the  depths  now 
existing,  but  it  will  not  prevent  very  serious  annoyance  to  the  navigation  interests 

;  during  the  execution  of  the  work.  The  time  required  will  be  several  years,  and  in 
the  meantime  the  vast  commerce  of  the  Great  Lakes  will  be  hampered,  not  only  by 
deficient  depth,  but  also  by  the  occupation  of  the  channels,  already  crowded  with 
commerce,  by  the  excavating  machines. 

31.  It  is  evident  from  the  foregoing  that  large  bodies  of  water  can  not  be  diverted 
by  the  Chicago  Drainage  Canal  without  very  serious  detriment  to  the  navigation 
interests  of  the  Great  Lakes  and  of  the  St.  Lawrence  Valley.  The  greater  the  amount 
of  water  diverted  the  greater  the  injury,  ('hicago  being  one  of  the  principal  lake 
ports,  there  will  be  very  few  communities  which  will  feel  this  detriment  more  than 
she  will. 

32.  In  the  presence  of  these  interests,  the  effect  upon  Niagara  Falls  may  be  simply 
I  mentioned  with  a  reference  to  our  former  reports  upon  that  subject.  The  volume  of 
r  Niagara  Falls  will  be  reduced  by  the  full  amount  diverted  at  Chicago. 

33.  The  city  of  Chicago  was  organized  as  a  city  in  1837  with  a  population  of  about 
I  4,000.  Its  population  in  1840  was  4,479;  in  1850,  28,269;  in  1860,  112,172;  in  1870, 

)  298,977;  in  1880,  503,185;  in  1890,  1,099,850;  and  in  1900  it  was  1,698,575.  It  is  esti- 

I  mated  now  to  be  about  2,000,000.  Should  the  rate  of  growth  continue  which  prevailed 
1  between  1880  and  1900,  the  population  will  be  3,000,000  in  the  year  1922  and  4,000,000 

in  the  year  1939.  It  is  impossible  to  foretell  its  future  growth,  but  there  is  no  reason 
to  doubt  that  it  will  in  time  greatly  exceed  the  largest  of  these  numbers.  The  city  is 
I  the  commercial  center  of  an  empire  still  in  its  infancy.  It  is  entirely  reasonable  to 
;  expect  a  po])ulation  of  five  or  six  millions  or  more.  It  will  cover  territory  not  now 
!  covered.  Methods  of  sewage  dis])osal  appropriate  to  one  portion  of  it  may  not  be 
'  appropriate  to  other  ])ortions.  If  the  diversion  of  20,000  cubic  feet  per  minute  (or  333^ 

■  cubic  feet  per  second)  for  each  100,000  of  population,  as  required  by  the  State  law,  is 
!  accepted  as  the  standard,  then  from  17,000  to  20,000  cubic  feet  i)er  second  will  be 
!  required,  and  the  14,000  cubic  feet  now  contemplated  will  not  be  sufficient.  Even 
!  more  than  20,000  cubic  feet  will  be  requii-ed  for  a  population  greater  than  6,000,000. 

'  The  diversion  of  20,000  cubic  feet  per  second  would  lower  Lakes  Michigan  and  Huron 
about  13  inches  and  Lake  Erie  about  11  inches.  Plans  which  lead  to  this  result 
;  should  be  carefully  scrutinized. 

34.  One  of  the  reasons  given  in  1889  for  adopting  this  method  of  disposing  of  (  hicago 
sewage  was  that  it  offered  the  advantage  of  furnishing  a  navigable  waterway  from 
Ghicago  to  the  Mississippi  River.  The  navigable  depth  or  capacity  of  such  a  water¬ 
way  has  never  been  authoritatively  fixed.  Congress  has  considered  a  depth  of  14 
feet  to  the  extent  of  ordering  a- survey  and  estimates  of  cost  for  that  depth,  but  the 

i  Illinois  Legislature  has  declared  its  policy  to  be  to  secure  the  construction  of  a  deeper 

I  channel,  not  limiting  its  proposed  capacity  in  terms,  but  defining  it  to  be  ‘‘of  the 

[  greatest  practicable  depth  and  usefulness  for  navigation.”  See  joint  resolutions 
adopted  May  27,  1889,  copy  omitting  preamble  hereto  appended,  marked  “Ig.”  A 
fair  interpretation  of  this  language  gives  a  proposed  depth  of  20  feet,  that  being  the 
depth  required  to  accommodate  the  most  important  vessels  now  navigating  the  Great 
i  Lakes.  It  will  require  a  volume  of  water  greater  than  the  10,000  cubic  feet  per  second 
L  originally  contemplated. 

:  35.  The  amount  which  it  is  proposed  to  divert  from  the  ('aliimet  River,  4,000  cubic 

I  feet  per  second,  is  fixed  by  accident  rather  than  by  design,  being  the  excess  which 

;  the  Chicago  Drainage  Canal  is  found  capable  of  carrying  after  providing  for  the  10,000 

i  cubic  feet  from  the  Chicago  River,  for  which  it  was  originally  constructed.  It  is 

I  certain  that  no  greater  amount  than  4,000  cubic  feet  can  be  diverted  from  the  Calumet 

;  without  checking  the  flow  from  the  ( 'hicago  River,  and  thus  giving  relief  to  a  suburban 
|‘  portion  of  the  city  at  the  expense  of  the  richest  and  most  po])ulous  centers. 

I  36.  It  is  equally  certain  that  the  diversion  of  4,000  cubic  feet  or  less  will  not  at  all 
times  afford  the  desired  relief  to  the  Calumet.  In  the  first  place,  it  provides  for  a 
population  of  only  1,200,000,  a  number  which  will  in  all  probability  be  greatly 
exceeded  at  a  day  not  remote.  At  present  the  population  is  estimated  at  about 
200,000,  but  for  the  present  necessities  it  is  not  a  (piestion  of  ])0])ulation,  but  of  drain¬ 
age  area  and  rainfall.  A  flood  discharge  of  the  Calumet  has  l)een  measured  at  River- 
'  dale,  about  10  miles  from  its  mouth,' of  about  13,300  cubic  feet  ])er  second  from  a 

drainage  area  of  about  700  scpiare  miles,  and  even  that  amount  may  at  times  be 
i  exceeded.  The  total  drainage  area  of  the  Calumet  region,  including  the  Sag  Valley, 

is  about  825  square  miles,  and  assuming  the  dis(diarge  to  increase  in  proportion  to  the 


74  INTERNATIONAL  WATERWAYS  COMMISSION  PROGRESS  REPORT. 


area,  the  flood  discharge  to  be  provided  for  is  over  15,700  cubic  feet  per  second.  The 
diversion  of  only  4,000  cubic  feet  will  not  prevent  a  heavy  discharge  into  Lake  Michi¬ 
gan  in  time  of  flood.  To  overcome  this  difficulty  it  is  proposed,  if  suitable  legislation 
can  be  secured,  to  divert  the  upper  Calumet  into  Lake  Michigan  through  an  artificial 
channel  to  be  excavated  in  Indiana  about  17^  miles  east  of  the  State  line.  Indiana 
has  not  authorized  such  diversion,  but  supposing  it  to  be  accomplished,  there  will 
still  be  times  when  the  discharge  from  the  drainage  area  remaining  to  be  cared  for  by 
the  canal,  238  square  miles,  will  exceed  4,000  cubic  feet  per  second.  The  excess 
must  enter  Lake  Michigan  through  the  mouth  of  the  Calumet,  and  at  such  times  the 
system  will  fail.  Of  course  it  makes  no  provision  for  the  future  occupation  of  the  upper 
Calumet  region  and  the  pollution  of  the  lake  from  that  source.  It  thus  appears  that 
the  diversion  of  the  Calumet  River  as  now  proposed  by  the  sanitary  district  will  not 
be  complete  even  for  the  present,  and  will  not  make  adequate  provision  for  the  future. 

37.  The  diversion  of  4,000  cubic  feet  per  second  provides  for  a  population  of  1,200,000 
by  the  standard  fixed  by  the  State  law.  The  population  of  the  Calumet  region  is 
now  about  200,000,  and  until  it  reaches  1,200,000  only  a  part  of  the  flow  will  be 
needed  for  sanitary  purposes  during  a  large  part  of  the  year;  but  the  channel  must 
be  there,  available  for  the  full  flow,  if  this  method  of  sewage  disposal  is  to  be  useful 
to  any  population,  however  small.  Likewise  the  channel  from  the  Chicago  River 
must  be,  as  it  is,  large  enough  to  provide  for  a  population  of  3,000,000,  whether  that 
number  of  people  are  ever  to  become  tributary  to  the  Chicago  River  or  not.  The 
channels  having  once  been  constructed,  any  reduction  of  flow  below  their  fullest 
capacity  is  a  dead  loss  to  the  water  power  dependent  upon  them.  It  has  been  said 
that  it  would  be  absurd  to  develop  water  power  at  the  cost  per  horsepower  which  this 
water  power  costs  if  the  drainage  canal  be  included,  and  that  is  true.  But  being  given 
the  channels,  it  would  not  be  absurd  to  use  them  to  their  fullest  capacity.  The 
Chicago  Drainage  Canal  having  been  constructed  with  a  capacity,  as  it  turns  out, 
of  14,000  cubic  feet  per  second,  full  power  development  will  call  for  the  whole  of 
that  amount,  and  in  fact  power  works  are  now  under  construction  at  Lockport  to 
utilize  it.  Inasmuch  as  the  sanitary  requirements  by  the  standard  fixed  in  the  State 
law  are  only  6,667  cubic  feet  per  second  for  the  present  population  of  2,000,000,  it 
is  evident  that  power  development,  incidental  though  it  be,  does  lead  to  demands 
for  water  not  required  for  sanitary  purposes. 

38.  It  remains  to  be  seen  whether  any  diversion,  complete  or  otherwise,  is  neces¬ 
sary  to  preserve  the  health  of  Chicago.  Upon  this  point  the  commission  sought  the 
advice  of  two  eminent  sanitary  engineers — Messrs.  Rudolph  Hering  and  George 
W.  Fuller — whom  it  instructed  as  follows,  viz:  “To  examine  the  sanitary  situation 
at  Chicago,  so  far  as  it  is  affected  by  sewage  disposal,  and  to  report  whether  it  is  or 
is  not  necessary  to  the  health  of  the  city  to  extend  to  outlying  territory  the  system 
which  was  adopted  in  1889  for  the  main  city.  *  *  *  The  commission  desires 
an  emphatic  opinion  from  authoritative  sources  as  to  whether  the  system  of  divert¬ 
ing  the  water  of  Lake  Michigan  in  large  quantities  into  the  Illinois  Valley  is  the 
only  way  to  preserve  the  lives  and  health  of  the  people  of  Chicago.  It  does  not 
desire  an  investigation  of  the  effect  upon  the  navigation  interests  of  the  Great  Lakes. 
It  has  satisfied  itself  upon  that  point.  Nor  does  it  wish  to  reopen  the  case  of  the 
Chicago  Drainage  Canal  as  designed  and  built.  It  accepts  that  as  a  fixed  fact,  with 
its  attendant  diversion  of  10,000  cubic  feet  per  second  through  the  Chicago  River. 
The  extension  of  the  system  to  the  Calumet  River  alone  is  in  question,  and  the 
question  is,  Are  there  not  other  methods  of  sewage  disposal  which  can  be  applied 
here  at  a  cost  not  exceeding  much,  if  at  all,  the  cost  of  the  method  proposed,  and 
which  will  be  equally  effective  in  preventing  the  pollution  of  the  lake?  It  desires 
a  report  upon  the  various  systems  which  may  be  found  available  for  application 
here,  with  a  statement  of  their  relative  efficiency.  It  also  desires  a  statement  of 
their  relative  cost,  so  far  as  that  can  be  given  without  the  preparation  of  detailed  plans. 
The  latest  conclusions  of  sanitary  engineers  as  to  the  amount  of  dilution  which  is 
required  to  make  sewage  inoffensive  should  be  given.”  These  gentlemen  visited 
Chicago,  and  after  a  thorough  examination  of  the  situation  submitted  a  report,  of 
which  a  copy  is  hereto  appended,  marked  “Ig.”  The  entire  report  should  be  care¬ 
fully  studied.  Its  conclusions  only  are  here  quoted.  They  are  as  follows,  viz: 

“The  latest  conclusions  of  sanitary  engineers  as  to  the  amount  of  dilution  which 
is  required  to  make  sewage  inoffensive  are  that  a  dilution  of  3^  cubic  feet  per  second 
for  each  1,000  persons  connected  with  the  sewers,  as  provided  for  in  the  enactment 
of  the  Illinois  Legislature  in  1889,  is  as  low  a  figure  as  it  is  now  possible  to  state.  We 
believe  that  with  the  elimination  of  objectionable  trade  wastes  and  the  occasional 
dredging  of  the  river  this  amount  of  dilution  will  be  sufficient  to  prevent  offensiveness. 

“The  extension  of  the  dilution  method  to  the  outlying  territory  is  not  the  only  way 
to  preserve  the  lives  and  health  of  the  people  of  Chicago.  The  application  of  this 
method,  with  flow  of  10,000  and  14,000  cubic  feet  per  second,  respectively,  for  the  area 


INTERNATIONAL  WATERWAYS  COMMISSION  PROGRESS  REPORT.  75 


i 


'  tributary  to  the  present  drainage  canal,  will  serve  populations  not  exceeding  3,000,000 
*  and  4,200,000,  respectively.  For  greater  populations  other  methods  of  sewage  dis- 

i  posal  will  be  required.  i  i  r  u 

i  “For  the  Calumet  area,  as  well  as  other  districts,  there  are  several  methods  for  the 
\  disposal  of  sewap  as  effective  as  the  present  method  of  dilution  in  preventing  the 
pollution  of  the  Take  waters. 

•'  “All  these  methods  involve  interce})ting  sewers  and  pum])mg  stations  to  collect 
and  deliver  the  sewage  at  suitable  sites.  Septic  tanks  are  used  for  partially  clarify¬ 
ing  the  sewage,  which  may  then  be  applied  to  any  one  of  three  methods  of  filters, 
^  viz,  intermittent  sand  fdters,  contact  filters,  and  sprinkling  filters. 

“All  of  these  fdters  if  well  built  and  well  managed  remove  the  suspended  and 
organic  matters  so  that  the  effluents  are  practically  clear  and  nonputrescible.  The 
removal  of  bacteria  by  these  three  types  of  filters  averages  at  least  98,  80,  and  90 
per  cent,  respectively.  Such  eflluents  may  be  discharged  into  any  of  the  water- 

-  courses  of  the  Calumet  region.  . 

“The  approximate  total  costs,  liberally  estimated,  without  the  preparation  ot 

detailed  plans,  for  a  population  of  1,200,000  are  as  follows: 

“A. — Intermittent  sand  filters. 


“  B. — Contact  filters. 


i  t 
(  4 


(  i 


C. — Sprinkling  filters. 


$11, 

063,  000 

17, 

320, 000 

28, 

383,  000 

$11, 

787,  500 

11, 

020,  000 

22, 

807,  500 

257,  500 

8, 

380,  000 

17, 

637,  500 

“  Annual  cost  of  operations,  $419,000,  capitalized  at  5  per  cent .  8,  380,  000 

17,  637,  500 

“The  present  population  on  the  Calumet  area  of  the  sanitary  district  being  less  than 
200,000  would  naturally  require  but  a  portion  of  the  cost  of  estimated  works  and  of 

their  operation  to  be  expended  at  the  outset. 

“Of  the  available  methods  of  disposing  of  the  sewage  of  the  Calumet  area  other  than 
by  dilution,  the  sprinkling  filter  method,  being  the  cheapest  both  in  cost  of  construc¬ 
tion  and  of  operation  and  accomplishing  an  adequate  degree  of  purification,  is  clearly 

the  most  advantageous  one.”  .  .  . 

These  engineers  stand  in  the  front  rank  of  their  profession  as  sanitary  experts.  Une 
of  them,  Mr.  Hering,  was  chairman  of  the  commission  of  1887,  whose  report  to  the 
mayor  and  city  council  of  Chicago  was  the  foundation  of  the  subsequent  legislation 
ami  led  to  the  construction  of  the  drainage  canal.  The  conclusions  reached  are  those 
of  friends  of  Chicago  and  not  of  her  enemies  or  rivals.  ,  .  i  . 

39.  A  method  of  sewage  disposal  for  the  Calumet  region  is  proposed  which  for  a  popu¬ 
lation  of  1,200,000  is  estimated  to  cost  $17,637,500.  For  the  present  population  of 
about  200,000  only  a  part  of  the  expense  need  be  incurred,  and  the  works  can  be  devel¬ 
oped  as  the  population  increases.  It  can,  when  the  necessity  arises,  be  applied  with 
a  population  much  exceeding  1,200,000.  The  cost  of  diverting  the  CaluiiKh  River 
into  the  Chicago  Drainage  Canal  is  estimated  at  $12,000,000.  The  greater  efficiency 
at  present  and  in  the  future  of  the  method  now  proposed  would  justify  a  considerable 
increase  of  cost,  but  in  view  of  the  fact  that  the  entire  expense  of  the  diversion  must 
be  incurred  at  the  outset,  while  by  the  new  method  the  expenditures  will  be  regulated 
by  the  growth  of  population,  the  difference  in  cost  may  be  considered  unimportant. 


SUMMARY. 

j  40.  The  following  is  a  summary  of  the  more  important  facts  recited  in  this  report: 

(а)  Chicago  obtains  its  water  supply  from  Lake  ^lichigan,  and  to  avoid  polluting  it 

■  must  either  dispose  of  its  sewage  otherwise  than  in  the  lake  or  place  its  intakes  tor 

‘  t  water  at  a  great  distance  from  the  city.  •  * 

(б)  The  topography  of  the  coiintrv  favors  the  discharge  of  the  sewage  into  the  JJes 
'•V  Plaines  River,  a  tributary  of  the  Mississippi,  through  two  depressions  in  the  divide 

'  wdiich  separates  that  river  from  T.ake  Michigan. 


76  INTERNATIONAL  WATERWAYS  COMMISSION  PROGRESS  REPORT. 


(c)  The  slope  on  the  lake  side  of  the  divide  is  drained  by  two  streams — the  Chicago 
River  and  the  Calumet  River — into  which  the  sewers  of  the  city  empty.  By  a  cut 
through  the  northerly  depression  the  flow  of  the  Chicago  River  has  been  reversed  and 
diverted  into  the  Des  Plaines  River  instead  of  into  Lake  Michigan,  and  by  a  cut 
through  the  southerly  depression  the  same  process  can  be  applied  to  the  Calumet 
River. 

(d)  To  make  this  reversal  effective  the  channels  must  be  large  enough  to  take  all 
the  water  which  falls  upon  the  respective  drainage  areas  during  the  most  violent  rain¬ 
storms.  This  amount  is  estimated  at  10,000  cubic  feet  per  second  for  the  Chicago 
River  and  15,700  cubic  feet  per  second  for  the  Calumet  River. 

(e)  The  city  of  Chicago  was  originally  built  upon  the  Chicago  River,  and  that  stream 
now  drains  the  richest  and  most  populous  part  of  the  city.  It  is  now  spreading  over 
the  Calumet  region. 

(/)  In  1889  the  plan  of  diverting  the  Chicago  River  into  the  valley  of  the  Des  Plaines 
was  definitively  adopted,  and  the  Chicago  Drainage  Canal  was  undertaken.  It  was 
designed  to  carry  10,000  cubic  feet  per  second.  Though  not  entirely  completed,  it 
has  been  in  use  since  January,  1900.  The  amount  expended  upon  the  canal  and 
accessory  work  is  about  $41,000,000. 

(g)  The  Illinois  law  which  authorized  the  canal  required  a  flow  of  333  cubic  feet  per 
second  for  each  100,000  of  population  in  order  to  render  the  sewage  inoffensive.  This 
amount  of  dilution  is  probably  not  excessive.  It  is  reasonable  to  expect  a  population 
in  a  future  not  remote  of  five  or  six  millions  or  more,  involving  the  diversion  by  this 
standard  of  some  20,000  cubic  feet  per  second.  The  Chicago  River  with  its  10,000 
cubic  feet  provides  for  a  population  of  3,000,000.  The  present  population  of  the  city 
is  about  2,000,000. 

(h)  It  is  now  proposed  to  apply  to  the  Calumet  River  a  treatment  similar  to  that 
applied  to  the  Chicago  River,  viz,  to  reverse  its  flow,  so  that  instead  of  discharging 
into  Lake  Michigan  it  shall  discharge  into  the  Des  Plaines,  but  for  a  part  of  the  new 
route  it  must  follow  the  drainage  canal  already  excavated  for  the  Chicago  River. 

(i)  Although  the  Chicago  Drainage  Canal  was  designed  to  carry  10,000  cubic  feet  per 
second,  it  is  found  to  have,  in  its  completed  rock  portion,  an  actual  capacity  of  14,000 
cubic  feet.  This  additional  capacity  Axes  the  amount  which  it  is  proposed  to  divert 
from  the  Calumet  at  4,000  cubic  feet  per  second.  Any  greater  amount  from  the 
Calumet  will  overtax  the  drainage  canal  at  the  expense  of  the  richest  part  of  Chicago 
and  for  the  benefit  of  a  suburban  part. 

(k)  The  diversion  of  only  4,000  cubic  feet  will  not  be  effective  at  all  times,  since  a 
much  greater  amount  must  be  diverted  from  the  Calumet  during  heavy  rainstorms  if 
the  lake  is  to  be  protected.  Moreover,  it  provides  for  a  population  not  exceeding 
1,200,000,  which  number  will  probably  be  exceeded  at  a  date  not  far  distant. 

(l)  The  large  channels  necessary  to  provide  for  the  contingencies  of  rainstorms  are 
capable  of  discharging  a  volume  of  water  largely  in  excess  of  sanitary  requirements 
during  the  greater  part  of  the  year,  but  the  development  of  water  power  creates  the 
demand  that  they  be  employed  to  their  full  capacity  throughout  the  year. 

(m)  The  diversion  of  large  bodies  of  water  from  Lake  Michigan  for  supplying  the 
drainage  canal  has  not  been  authorized  by  Congress,  but  there  appears  to  be  a  tacit 
general  agreement  that  no  objection  will  be  made  to  the  diversion  of  10,000  cubic  feet 
per  second,  as  originally  planned. 

(n)  The  diversion  of  10,000  cubic  feet  per  second  will  lower  the  levels  of  Lake  Michi- 
gan-Huron,  Lake  St.  Clair,  Lake  Erie,  Lake  Ontario,  and  the  St.  Lawrence  River, 
besides  the  important  connecting  channels,  the  Detroit  and  St.  Clair  Rivers,  by 
amounts  varying  from  4^  to  6^  inches  for  the  different  waters,  and  the  diversion  of 
14,000  cubic  feet  will  lower  them  from  6  to  8J  inches.  The  diversion  of  20,000  cubic 
feet  will  lower  Lake  Michigan-Huron  about  13  inches  and  Lake  Erie  about  11  inches. 

(o)  The  lake  traffic  which  passed  through  the  Detroit  River  in  1905  was  about 
58,000,000  tons,  valued  at  about  $615,000,000.  It  is  increasing  annually  with  mar¬ 
velous  rapidity.  The  records  for  the  year  1906,  so  far  as  they  are  made  up,  indicate 
that  the  number  of  tons  which  passed  through  the  Detroit  River  in  1906  exceeded 
65,000,000,  valued  at  $690,000,000.  The  lowering  of  the  water  surface  has  a  very 
injurious  effect  upon  this  traffic  and  upon  that  of  the  Welland  and  St.  Lawrence 
Canals.  Chicago  being  one  of  the  principal  lake  ports,  there  will  be  very  few  com¬ 
munities  which  will  feel  the  injury  more  than  she  will. 

(p)  The  cost  of  restoring  the  depth  in  the  harbors  of  the  Great  Lakes  and  the  chan¬ 
nels  between  The  lakes  is  estimated  at  $10,000,000,  and  of  restoring  it  in  the  Welland 
and  St.  Lawrence  Canals  at  $2,500,000.  This  expenditure  would  not  prevent  very 
serious  annoyance  to  the  navigation  interests  during  the  execution  of  the  remedial 
works,  which  would  occupy  several  years.  _  In  Lake  St.  Clair  navigation  of  the  open 
lake  would  be  replaced  by  that  of  an  artificial  channel  or  canal  with  submerged  banks. 


INTERNATIONAL  WATERWAYS  COMMISSION  PROGRESS  REPORT.  77 

(q)  The  extension  to  the  Calumet  region  of  the  method  of  sewage  disposal  already 
‘  applied  to  the  Chicago  River  is  not  necessary  to  preserve  the  health  of  Chicago,  there 
'  being  other  and  better  methods  available  for  the  Calumet  region.  The  final  cost  of 
;  these  methods  is  somewhat  greater  than  that  of  the  one  proposed,  hut  the  works  can  be 

[developed  as  the  population  increases,  and  only  a  part  of  their  cost  need  be  incurred 
at  present,  while  their  greater  efliciency  justifies  the  increase  of  final  cost. 

•  (r)  The  diversion  cf  10, 000  culiic  feet  of  water  per  second  at  Chicago  will  render 

5  practicable  a  waterway  to  the  Mississippi  River  14  feet  deep.  Any  greater  depth 
must  be  obtained  by  the  abstracti  ui  of  more  water  from  Lake  Michigan  and  at  the 
'  expense  of  the  navigation  interests  of  the  Great  Lakes  and  of  the  St.  Lawrence  Valley, 
(s)  The  effect  upon  Niagara  Falls  of  diverting  water  at  Chicago  is  of  secondary 
importance  when  considering  the  health  of  a  great  city  and  the  navigation  inl(*r('sts 
of  the  Great  Lakes  and  of  the  St.  Lawrence  Valley,  but  it  is  proper  to  note  that  tho 
volume  of  the  falls  will  be  diminished  by  the  full  amount  diverted  at  Chicago. 

RECOMMENDATIONS. 

^  41.  The  waters  of  Lake  Michigan  in  the  United  States,  the  waters  of  Georgian  Ray 

in  Canada,  and  the  waters  of  Lake  Superior  parti}'-  in  the  United  States  and  partly  in 
Canada  all  form  sources  of  supply  of  the  Great  Lakes  system,  finding  their  way  by  the 
‘  St,  Lawrence  to  the  sea.  All  are  interdependent  and  there  can  be  no  diversion  from 
any  of  them  without  injury  to  the  whole  system.  Ry  Article  XXVI  of  the  treaty  of 
1871  it  is  provided  that  “navigation  of  the  river  St.  Lawrence,  ascending  and  de¬ 
scending  from  the  forty-fifth  parallel  of  north  latitude,  where  it  ceases  to  form  the 
boundary  between  the  two  countries,  from,  to,  and  into  the  sea,  shall  forever  remain 
1 1  free  and  open  for  the  purposes  of  commerce  to  the  citizens  of  the  United  States, 
subject  to  any  laws  ana  regulations  of  Great  Rritain,  or  of  the  Dominion  of  Canada, 
not  inconsistent  with  such  privileges  of  free  navigation.”  It  is  desirable  that  in  any 
•  treaty  arrangement  the  waters  of  Lake  Michigan.  Georgian  Ray,  and  all  other  waters 
;  forming  part  of  the  Great  Lakes  system  should  be  declared  to  be  “forever  free  and 
1  open  for  the  purposes  of  commerce”  to  the  citizens  of  the  United  States  and  the 
subjects  of  His  Rritannic  Majesty,  subject  to  any  laws  and  regulations  of  either  coun- 
;  try  not  inconsistent  with  such  privilege  of  free  navigation. 

i  42.  The  preservation  of  the  levels  of  the  Great  Lakes  is  imperative.  The  interest 
1  of  navigation  in  these  waters  is  paramount,  subject  only  to  the  right  of  use  for  domestic 
purposes,  in  which  term  is  included  necessary  sanitary  purposes.  In  our  report  of 
November  15,  1906,  upon  the  application  of  the  Minnesota  Canal  &  Power  Co.  to 
divert  certain  waters  in  Minnesota,  we  recommended,  among  other  things  “that  any 
treaty  which  may  be  entered  into  should  define  the  uses  to  which  international 
waters  may  be  put  by  either  country  without  the  necessity  of  adjustment  in  each 
instance,  and  would  respectfully  suggest  that  such  uses  should  be  declared  to  be  (a) 
uses  for  necessary  domestic  and  sanitary  purposes;  (b)  service  of  locks  for  navigation 
purposes;  (c)  the  right  to  navigate.”  It  is  our  opinion  that  so  fai  as  international 
action  is  concerned  a  treaty  provision  of  that  kind  is  all  that  is  required  in  this  case. 
We  accordingly  renew  our  recommendation  of  November  15,  1906,  just  quoted. 

43,  A  careful  consideration  of  all  the  circumstances  leads  us  to  the  conclusion  that 
the  diversion  of  10,000  cubic  feet  per  second  through  the  Chicago  River  will,  with 
proper  treatment  of  the  sewage  from  areas  now  sparsely  occupied,  ])rovide  for  all  the 
population  which  will  ever  be  tributary  to  that  river,  and  that  the  amount  named  will 
•  therefore  suffice  for  the  sanitary  purposes  of  the  city  for  all  time.  Incidentally  it 
will  provide  for  the  largest  navigable  waterway  from  Lake  Michigan  to  the  Mississippi 
.  River  which  has  been  considered  by  Congress. 

We  therefore  recommend  that  the  Government  of  the  United  States  prohil)it  the 
diversion  of  more  than  10,000  cubic  feet  per  second  for  the  Chicago  Drainage  Canal. 

‘  All  of  which  is  respectfully  submitted. 

(4.  If.  Ernst, 

Brigadier  General,  U.  S.  Army,  retired.  Chairman  American  Section. 

’  George  Clinton, 

‘  E.  E.  Haskell, 

Members  American  Section. 

Geo.  C.  Giubons, 
Chairman  Canadian  Section. 

^  W.  F.  King. 

Louis  Coste, 

attest:  Members  Canadian  Section. 

*  .  W.  Edward  Wilson, 

Secretary  American  Section. 

Thomas  Cote, 

Secretary  Canadian  Section. 


78  INTERNATIONAL  WATERWAYS  COMMISSION  PROGRESS  REPORT. 


Appendix  I.j 

Chicago,  January,  1887 . 

To  the  honorable  Mayor  and  City  Council  of  the  City  of  Chicago. 

Gentlemen:  On  January  27,  1886,  your  honorable  body  passed  a  resolution  author¬ 
izing  the  creation  of  a  drainage  and  water-supply  commission.  After  being  amended, 
February  23,  it  read  as  follows: 

“Whereas  pure  water  and  scientific  drainage  are  necessities  of  this  community,  and 
the  people  demand  a  system  of  water  supply  and  drainage  adequate  to  meet  the 
requirements,  not  only  of  the  present,  but  of  j’-ears  to  come,  nor  will  any  temporary 
expedient  or  makeshift  satisfy  them;  and 

“M'heieas  a  thorough  and  permanent  system  of  supplying  pure  water  to  our  citizens 
and  caring  for  the  drainage  of  the  municipality  can  not  be  paid  for  out  of  current 
taxation,  therefore  it  is  desired  that  a  plan  shall  be  devised  and  perfected  before  the 
next  meeting  of  the  legislature  to  the  end  that  necessary  legislation  may  be  had. 

“For  the  purpose  of  carrying  into  effect  the  objects  sought  there  is  recommended 
the  appointment  by  the  mayor  of  a  commission  to  consist  of  one  expert  engineer, 
whose  reputation  is  so  high  that  his  opinion  and  report  will  command  the  respect  of 
the  community,  and  with  him  one  oi  two  consulting  engineers  of  like  experience  in 
engineering  and  sanitary  matters.  The  duty  of  this  drainage  and  water-supply 
commission,  made  up  as  above  set  forth,  should  be  to  consider  all  plans  relating  to 
drainage  and  watei  supply  which  may  be  brought  to  its  attention  to  make  such  exami¬ 
nations  and  investigations  and  surveys  as  may  be  deemed  necessary;  to  collect  all 
information  bearing  on  this  problem;  to  consider  all  recent  developments  in  the  matter 
of  sewage  disposal  and  their  application  to  our  present  and  future  needs;  to  consider 
and  meet  necessity  of  increasing  oui  water  supply  and  of  protecting  the  same  from 
contamination;  to  remedy  our  present  inadequate  methods  of  drainage  and  sewage 
disposal;  to  consider  the  relations  of  any  system  proposed  to  adjacent  districts,  and 
whether  there  may  not  be  a  union  between  the  city  and  its  suburbs  to  solve  the  great 
problem;  to  determine  the  great  question  as  to  the  interest  which  the  State  and 
the  United  States  may  have  in  the  disposal  of  sewage  by  way  of  the  Illinois  River 
and  to  devise  plans  to  meet  any  objections  thereto,  if  such  a  system  shall  be  thought 
best;  and  in  general  to  consider  and  report  upon  any  and  all  things  which  relate  to 
the  matter  of  water  supply  and  drainage  of  the  city  of  Chicago. 

“The  commission  should  report  on  the  whole  matter  committed  to  it  in  the  most  full 
and  comprehensive  manner,  with  maps,  plans,  and  diagrams  complete,  and  accom¬ 
pany  the  report  with  estimates  of  the  first  cost  and  annual  requirements  for  the  main¬ 
tenance  of  the  system  proposed. 

“The  report  of  the  commission  should  be  made  as  early  as  practicable  and  not  later 
than  the  convening  of  the  next  session  of  the  Illinois  Legislature  in  January,  1887. 

“In  consideration  of  the  foregoing,  be  it 

‘^Resolved,  That  the  mayor  be,  and  is  hereby,  authorized  and  directed  to  employ 
on  behalf  of  the  city  one  expert  engineer  of  reputation  and  experience  in  engineering 
and  sanitarv  matters,  at  a  salary  not  to  exceed  $10,000  per  annum,  and  also  to  employ 
such  consulting  engineers,  not  exceeding  two  in  number,  as  may  seem  necessary,  and 
such  assistant  engineers  as  may  be  req  uired ,  al  1  to  be  paid  according  to  services  rendered, 
for  the  purpose  of  carrying  out  the  objects  set  forth  in  the  preamble  hereto.  For  the 
fees  of  said  assistant  engineers  and  for  all  expenses  connected  with  said  work  there 
shall  be  allowed  not  to  exceed  the  sum  of  $20,000.  All  fees,  salaries,  and  expenses 
connected  with  said  work  shall  not  exceed  in  the  aggregate  the  sum  of  $30,000,  and  the 
same  shall  be  paid  from  the  water  fund  of  the  city^pon  vouchers  audited  by  the  mayor 
and  city  comptroller.” 

In  accordance  with  the  terms  expressed  herein  his  honor  Carter  II.  Harrison  appointed 
Rudolph  Ilering  as  chief  engineer,  Renezette  Williams  and  S.  G.  Artingstall  as  con¬ 
sulting  engineers,  who  together  should  constitute  a  commission.  Mr.  liering  entered 
upon  duty  March  28,  Mr.  Williams  September  17,  and  Mr.  Artingstall  December  21, 
1886. 

The  investigation  designated  bv  the  resolution  was  a  formidable  one,  comprising 
no  less  a  task  than  the  consideration  of  the  entire  subject  of  the  future  water  supply 
and  drainage  of  Chicago.  It  appeared  doubtful  from  the  beginning  that  a  report  such 
as  was  demanded  could  be  furnished  within  the  specified  time,  for  the  simple  reason, 
if  for  no  other,  that  observations  of  the  lake  phenomena  and  of  the  flow  of  certain  rivers 
should  be  extended  over  at  least  one  year,  covering  four  consecutive  seasons,  in  order 
to  draw  satisfactory  deductions. 

But  the  large  amount  of  work  alone  that  was  asked  for  made  it  impracticable  to  pre¬ 
sent  a  complete  report  in  so  short  a  time.  It  was  expected,  however,  that  results  could 
be  reached  sufficient  to  indicate  the  character  of  legislation  required  to  carry  out  any 
project  that  might  be  determined  upon,  and  that  therefore  a  preliminary  report  having 


INTERNATIONAL  WATERWAYS  COMMISSION  PROGRESS  REPORT.  79 


this  end  in  view  could  be  made  at  the  stated  time,  leaving  to  a  later  date  the  presen ta- 
•  tion  of  a  repoit  outlining  the  detailed  features  of  the  scheme  recommended  and 
'  embracing  the  minor  results  of  the  entire  inquiry. 

The  present  communication  is  to  cover  the  ground  indicated  for  the  preliminary 
report,  and  besides  containing  the  conclusions  reached  regarding  the  main  features 
of  the  proposed  project,  it  contains  also  a  brief  review  of  the  work  done  during  the  past 
year  and  of  what  still  remains  to  be  done. 

j  The  month  of  April  was  devoted  to  a  general  examination  of  the  subject  of  the  terri- 
I  tory  to  be  investigated  and  of  the  various  suggestions  that  had  been  made  toward 
effecting  a  solution  of  the  problem. 

The  examination  disclosed  the  fact  that  the  city  is  sometimes  greatly  suffering  from 
1  the  offensive  condition  of  parts  of  the  Chicago  River  and  its  branches,  caused  by  the 
I  discharge  of  sewage  into  the  same,  and  from  the  occasional  contamination  of  its  water 
i  supply  brought  about  by  the  discharge  of  the  polluted  contents  of  the  river  into  the 
lake.  It  also  disclosed  the  fact  that  almost  every  conceivable  way  of  dealing  with 
i  these  questions  had  been  suggested  and  in  some  forms  applied  during  the  past  30 
I  years. 

I  The  problem  therefore  demands  the  attainment  of  two  ends — the  protection  of  the 
I  water  supply  and  the  removal  of  the  river  nuisance.  As  the  water  must  be  taken 
[.  from  the  lake,  it  is  evident  that  both  its  pollution  and  the  objectionable  condition  of 
i  the  rivers  should  be  prevented  by  a  better  disposition  of  the  sewaga.  It  is,  therefore, 
the  latter  question  which  constitutes  the  main  object  of  this  investigation. 

Among  the  possible  methods  of  getting  rid  of  the  Chicago  sewage  there  are  but  three 
that  have  been  deemed  worthy  of  an  extended  consideration,  namely:  A  discharge 
into  Lake  Michigan,  a  disposal  upon  land,  and  a  discharge  into  the  Des  Plaines  River. 
The  preliminary  work  has,  therefore,  been  confined  to  these  three  projects  and  was 
classed  as  topographic,  hydrographic,  and  miscellaneous. 

At  the  time  when  the  present  commission  began  its  labors  the  topographical  work 
had  already  received  some  attention.  Surveys  were  being  made  of  the  Des  Plaines 
River  from  Bridgeport  westward  under  the  direction  of  Mr.  Artingstall,  city  engineer. 

[  These  surveys  were  continued,  and  have  now  been  completed  as  far  as  Joliet.  They 
i  include  contours  of  the  entire  valley  and  borings  to  rock  between  Bridgeport  and 
Lemont.  In  order  to  understand  the  hydrography  of  the  Des  Plaines  Valley  above 
i  the  point  where  the  Chicago  sewage  could  be  discharged  into  it,  and  also  to  ascertain 
I  the  probable  magnitude  and  effect  of  floods  in  the  river,  a  survey  was  made  of  its  bed 
as  far  north  as  Northfield  Township.  To  determine  the  area  of  the  basin,  its  entire 
divide  was  located.  To  ascertain  the  practicability  of  diverting  the  flood  waters  from 
1  the  upper  portion  of  the  Des  Plaines  and  North  Branch  watersheds  directly  into  the 
lake,  and  thus  avoiding  the  difficulties  which  would  arise  from  their  passing  through 
I  the  Chicago  River,  all  feasible  lines  were  surveyed.  Finally,  a  few  levels  were  taken 
I  of  the  area  adjoining  the  city  wherever  no  connected  levels  existed  to  show  the  gen¬ 
eral  topographical  features  of  the  territory  over  which  the  future  city  will  spread  out 
and  from  which  the  drainage  will  require  artificial  removal. 

The  hydrographic  work  consisted  in  ascertaining  the  flow  of  the  Des  Plaines  River, 
the  rainfall  upon  its  area,  its  flood  discharges,  the  character  of  its  bed,  and  the  prob- 
;  able  effect  of  discharging  the  Chicago  sewage  into  it  when  diluted  by  a  large  and  con- 
i  slant  stream  of  Avater  from  the  lake.  It  consisted,  further,  in  examining  the  nature 
I  of  the  currents  in  the  lake  and  in  studving  the  rise  and  fall  of  its  level,  and  in  ascer¬ 
taining  the  amount  and  character  both  of  the  sewage  discharged  into  it  and  of  the 
deposits  in  the  river  and  lake  in  front  of  the  city  to  determine  the  effects  of  the  pres¬ 
ent  sewage  disposal. 

“  Inquiry  and  surveys  were  made  to  show  the  feasibility  of  purifying  the  Chicago 
sewage  by  filtration  on  land.  Land  damages  were  carefully  estimated  for  the  different 
schemes;  existing  records  were  searched  concerning  borings  and  excavations  made  in 
and  about  the  city,  so  that  the  practicability  of  certain  lines  of  tunnels  could  be  dis- 
I  covered;  the  probable  growth  of  the  city  and  its  suburbs,  as  well  as  the  probable  dis- 
i  tribution  of  the  future  population,  received  a  careful  attention,  and,  finally,  a  large 
number  of  data  were  compiled  which  pertain  to  the  existing  works  of  water  supply 
and  sewerage  in  Chicago  and  the  adjoining  towns. 

In  reporting  the  result  thus  far  gained  we  will  present  them  in  the  order  most  con- 
;  venient  for  discussion,  but  before  doing  so  will  briefly  describe  the  present  manner 
,  and  effect  of  the  sewage  disposal,  as  shown  by  this  investigation. 

PRESENT  SEWAGE  DISPOSAL. 

The  sewage  works  of  Chicago  and  suburbs  have  been  planned  on  what  is  called  the 
combined  system,  in  which  the  sewers  serve  for  the  removal  both  of  sewage  and  rain 
water.  In  the  town  of  Evanston  they  empty  into  the  lake.  In  the  town  of  Lake  view 
they  partly  discharge  into  the  lake  and  partly  into  the  North  Branch.  From  the  north 


80  INTERNATIONAL  WATERWAYS  COMMISSION  PROGRESS  REPORT. 


and  west  divisions  and  part  of  the  south  division  of  Chicago  the  drainage  enters  the 
Chicago  River  and  its  branches,  and  from  the  remaining  part  of  the  south  division  it 
flows  into  the  lake  at  tliree  outlets,  situated,  respectively,  at  Twelfth,  Twenty-second, 
and  Thirty-fifth  Streets.  The  sewers  of  Hyde  Park  discharge  into  the  lake,  excepting 
those  of  Pullman,  where  the  sewage  is  disposed  of  on  land.  The  town  of  Lake,  includ¬ 
ing  the  Stock  Yards  district,  drains  into  the  South  Fork  of  the  Chicago  River. 

When  the  sewage  works  of  this  city  were  designed,  in  1856,  by  Mr.  E.  S.  Chesbrough, 
it  was  apprehended  that  ultimately  some  means  would  have  to  be  found  to  change  the 
water  in  the  river  from  time  to  time  or  to  keep  the  sewage  entirely  out  of  it.  The  first 
step  toward  improving  the  condition  of  the  river  was  taken  by  deepening  the  Illinois 
and  Michigan  Canal,  so  as  to  cause  a  current  from  the  lake  to  the  Des  Plaines  River  at 
Lockport,  the  next  step  was  the  building  of  the  Fullerton  Avenue  conduit  in  order  to 
produce  a  circulation  in  the  North  Branch,  and  the  last  step  was  the  erection  of  the 
canal  pumping  works  to  increase  the  flow  in  the  river,  which  had  become  greatly 
polluted 

The  influence  of  these  works  is  confined  to  the  main  river  and  its  north  and  south 
branches.  But  the  South  Fork  of  the  latter,  receiving  a  large  amount  of  sewage  from 
Chicago  and  the  town  of  Lake,  and  charged  with  the  waste  frorn  the  LTnion  Stock  Yards 
and  packing  houses,  has  no  artificial  means  for  a  circulation  of  its  water,  and  as  a  con¬ 
sequence  is  in  a  condition  of  great  filthiness. 

The  accompanying  diagram  ^  has  been  prepared  to  show  the  present  pollution  of  the 
Chicago  River  and  its  branches  during  the  time  when  all  of  their  water  is  discharged 
into  the  canal  by  the  Bridgeport  jmmps.  On  the  left  are  shown  the  main  river  and  the 
North  Branch,  one  above  the  other,  their  combined  waters  forming  the  South  Branch, 
and  reaching  Bridgeport  on  the  right,  where  they  are  lifted  into  the  canal. 

At  the  latter  point  the  South  Fork  is  shown  as  joining  it.  The  shaded  portions 
indicate  the  amount  of  sewage  entering  and  passing  the  respective  points,  and  the 
blank  portions  the  lake  water  diluting  it.  The  degree  of  dilution  is  shown  by  the  rela¬ 
tive  areas.  It  diminishes  in  the  North  Branch  from  Fullerton  Avenue  to  the  South 
Branch,  and  becomes  still  less  toward  Bridgeport,  and  finally  receives  the  foul  waters 

of  the  South  Fork  _  •  ,  i 

The  depth  and  character  of  sewage  deposits  in  the  river  and  harbor,  as  might  be 
expected,  vary  considerably.  They  are  not  great  in  the  track  of  the  vessels,  but 
increase  toward  the  docks  and  quieter  portions  of  the  slips,  where  they  reach  a  depth 
of  from  1  to  4  feet.  While  the  deposits  in  the  channel  are  of  a  heavier  kind,  such  as 
cinders,  those  in  the  docks  are  mostly  a  foul  mass  of  decomposing  organic  matter.  No 
form  of  life  is  found  to  exist  above  Clark  Street  Bridge  as  far  north  as  Clybourn  Place 
and  as  far  south  as  Ashland  Avenue.  The  effect  of  this  condition  of  the  river  is  to 
endanger  the  purity  of  the  water  supply  whenever  the  river,  with  its  accumulated 
deposits,  flows  into  the  lake,  which  occurs  when  the  rain  water  that  finds  its  way  into 
the  river  exceeds  the  amount  pumped  into  the  canal.  If  this  excess  is  great,  as  in  the 
spring  and  occasionally  in  the  summer  months,  the  contamination  of  the  lake  is  con¬ 
siderable,  and  must  constantly  increase. 

From  the  foregoing  it  is  seen  that  the  present  method  of  disposal  of  the  sewage  from 
Chicago  and  its  suburbs  is  partly  by  discharging  it  into  Lake  Michigan,  but  mainly, 
except  during  floods,  by  discharging  it  into  the  Des  Plaines  River. 


FUTURE  POPULATION, 

The  first  question  which  required  an  answer,  and  upon  which  many  of  the  subse¬ 
quent  inquiries  depended,  was  the  population  which  it  is  economical  and  advisable  to 
consider  at  present,  and  the  extent  of  territory  upon  which  such  a  population  will  be 
located. 

The  growth  of  Chicago  has  been  frequently  quoted  as  phenomenal.  Estimates 
made  thereof  for  various  purposes  have  turned  out  to  be  rather  under  than  over  the 
actual  result. 

It  is  taken  for  granted  that  Chicago  and  its  suburban  towns  will  have  to  dispose 
of  their  sewage  so  that  the  water  supply  for  the  entire  community  residing  near  the 
lake  from  the  south  line  of  Hyde  Park  to  the  north  line  of  Evanston  will  be  guarded 
against  pollution  by  the  sewage  from  any  one  of  its  separate  communities.  For  this 
purpose  the  whole  populated  area  within  the  above  limits  is  considered  as  forming  one 
city  with  a  common  interest. 

The  growth  of  this  metropolis  was  obtained  partly  from  the  United  States  census  and 
partly  from  the  school  census  of  Cook  County,  which  gave  a  record  up  to  the  summer 
of  1886.  In  order  to  forecast  the  probable  ratio  of  the  future  increase  it  was  desirable 


1  Omitted;  printed  in  Hoase  Ex.  Doe.  No.  264,  51st  Ck)ng.,  1st  sess. 


INTERNATIONAL  WATERWAYS  COMMISSION  I’ROORESS  REPORT.  81 


I  to  compare  this  growth  with  that  of  other  cities.  By  considering;  tlie  ratio  in  increase 
I  elsewhere,  and  including  the  natural  suburbs  of  each  city,  a  fair  and  instructive  basis 
'  of  comparison  was  obtained;  and  by  realizing  the  respective  natural  advantages  for 
I  growth  in  each  of  the  communities  the  probable  ratio  for  Chicago  was  determined  with 
I  a  satisfactory  degree  of  exactness. 

f  The  accoiiipanying  diagram  shows  the  results  of  this  comparison.  It  represents  by 
j  curves  the  population  of  the  largest  cities  in  the  country  since  1790,  not  as  usually 
quoted  from  the  census,  giving  the  inhabitants  on  certain  arbitrary  areas  fixed  by  law, 
but  as  virtually  making  up  the  ])opulation  of  the  respective  municipalities,  by  includ¬ 
ing  adjacent  towns  and  natural  suburbs,  the  only  method  which  enables  the  true 
'  growth  of  the  great  cities  to  be  recognized.  For  instance,  the  New  York  center  natu¬ 
rally  includes  Brooklyn,  Jersey  City,  Hoboken,  Newark,  and  other  suburbs,  and  Chi¬ 
cago,  the  entire  territory  from  Hyde  Park  to  Evanston. 

The  diagram  indicates  that  the  character  of  growth  of  the  different  cities  permits 
them  to  be  divided  into  two  distinct  classes.  Philadelphia,  Boston,  St.  Jjouis,  and 
Cincinnati  show  very  much  the  same  character  of  increase,  and  represent  by  compari¬ 
son  the  more  conservative  communities.  New  York  and  Chicago,  on  the  other  hand, 
while  showing  a  remarkable  resemblance  to  each  other,  form  quite  a  contrast  to  the  rest 
^  of  the  cities,  and  might  be  called  the  more  progressive  communities.  The  diagram 
finallv  indicates  the  time  when  the  Chicago  curve,  which  was  the  lowest  one  prior  to 
.  1864, ‘intersected  in  turn  those  of  St.  Louis,  Cincinnati,  Boston,  and  there  is  a  high 
degree  of  probability  of  its  intersecting  the  Philadelphia  curve  in  or  before  1891— i.  e,, 
in  four  years  from  now — after  which  Chicago  will  be  the  second  largest  center  of  popu¬ 
lation  in  America. 

As  it  is  not  practicable  in  so  young  a  city  as  Chicago  to  forecast  a  definite  line  of 
j  growth,  it  is  preferred  to  give  the  probable  maximum  and  the  probable  minimum 
’  between  which  the  true  line  will  most  likely  be  contained.  The  minimum  line  repre¬ 
sents  a  growth  resembling  that  of  New  York,  and  the  maximum  line  assumes  the  latio 
of  increase  per  decade  to  be  constant  instead  of  gradually  decreasing,  as  in  most  other 
!  cities.  The  result  indicates  that  the  population  of  Chicago  and  suburbs  will  be  2,500,- 
!  000  between  the  years  1905  and  1915,  or  about  three  times  the  present  population  in 
'  18  to  28  years. 

t  In  providing  public  works  for  large  communities  it  must  be  borne  in  mind  that  it  is 
i  economical  to  invest  only  such  sums  as  will  bring  a  return  within  a  certain  number  of 
1  years,  leaving  expenditures  for  benefits  that  will  be  realized  only  at  a  later  time  to  a 
later  generation.  This  fact,  together  with  the  probable  grovdh  of  Chicago,  shows  it  to 
be  economical  and  judicious  at  present  to  plan  works  sufficiently  extensive  to  dispose 
of  the  sewage  of  not  less  than  2,500,000  inhabitants. 

In  addition  to  the  population  the  area  that  will  be  occupied  by  it  has  to  be  deter¬ 
mined.  While  this  is  a  far  m.ore  difficult  task,  owing  to  the  many  accidental  causes 
influencing  the  distribution  of  the  population,  it  is  possible,  nevertheless,  to  outline 
the  area  sufficiently  close  for  present  purposes. 

The  future  metropolis,  with  a  population  three  times  as  great,  will  be  distributed 
along  the  lake  from  South  Chicago  to  Evanston,  and  will  reach  inland  to  the  Blue 
Island  ridge  in  the  south  to  the  Dcs  Plaines  River  in  the  center,  and  to  the  higher 
parts  of  Niles  Township  in  the  north.  Outside  of  these  general  limits  a  more  or  less 
dense  population  will  extend  for  some  distance  along  the  lines  of  railroad.^ 

As  inferred  above,  it  is  proper  to  consider  at  this  time  the  wants  of  the  population 
that  will  reside  upon  this  entire  territory. 

I 

DISCHARGE  OF  THE  SEWAGE  INTO  LAKE  MICHIGAN. 

To  discharge  the  sewage  from  cities  into  comparatively  large  bodies  of  water  is  not 
only  the  usual  but  often  the  best  method  for  its  disposal.  Dilution  and  dispersion 
thoroughly  expose  it  to  the  action  of  the  oxygen  contained  in  both  the  water  and  the 
'  superincumbent  air;  it  is  thereby  gradually  oxidized.  Where  the  body  of  water  is  a 
large  river  with  a  strong  current,  the  best  conditions  for  such  purification  are  found. 
‘  Where  it  is  a  lake  in  which  the  circulation  is  slight  and  irregular,  the  efficacy  of  the 
method  is  less  and  depends  for  its  success  on  the  character  of  the  currents  and  the  rela¬ 
tive  amount  of  sewage  to  be  discharged  into  it.  _ 

The  hydrogi’aphic  surveys  of  the  lake  made  during  the  past  season  were  therefore 
partly  for  the  purpose  of  ascertaining,  if  possible,  the  laws  goyeniing  the  currents,  so 
that  we  would  know  their  effect  in  dispersing  the  sewage  discharged  into  the  lake. 
The  trend  of  the^shore  currents  was  actually  ascertained  by  daily  recording  the  direc- 


1  Here  occurs  a  diagram  showing  the  “  growth  of  several  population  centers  in  the  United  States,”  not 
here  reproduced. 


S.  Doc.  959-62-3 - 6 


82  INTERNATIONAL  WATERWAYS  COMMISSION  PROGRESS  REPORT. 


tion  of  spar  buoys  placed  at  the  (diicago  waterworks  crib,  at  Michigan  City  and  at  St. 
Joseph.  A  large  number  of  l)Ottle  floats  were  thrown  into  the  lake  at  different  points 
and  different  times  for  the  same  purpose.  They  were  partly  single  surface  floats  and 
partly  double,  the  lower  one  being  placed  at  varying  depths,  according  to  the  depth  of 
the  water.  More  than  half  of  them  have  been  picked  up  and  returned,  with  place 
and  date  noted.  The  currents  were  also  observed  by  means  of  large  can  buoys  from 
an  anchored  tugboat  at  different  points  in  the  lake  extending  from  Hyde  Park  to 
Evanston,  about  G  miles  from  the  vshore.  Two  general  lake  trips  were  undertaken,  one 
to  St.  Joseph  and  back  to  Grosse  Point,  and  another  one  parallel  with  the  shore  around 
the  head  of  the  lake. 

When  the  observations  are  completed  and  compiled  in  detail,  some  valuable  informa¬ 
tion  will  be  available  for  the  question  of  water  supply.  Light  will  be  thrown  on  the 
movement  of  the  water  under  different  winds  and  the  sudden  changes  of  temperature 
of  the  water  at  the  crib  and  on  the  turbidness  of  the  same. 

The  following  results  have  a  bearing  on  the  question  of  sewage  disposal;  Where 
not  affected  by  local  conditions,  the  currents  practically  go  with  the  winds  in  water 
of  moderate  depth  and  quickly  respond  to  any  change.  In  deep  water  also  the  surface 
currents  run  with  the  wind,  but  at  the  bottom  and  even  at  mid  dejjth  the  direction 
is  usually  different.  The  prevailing  current  along  the  shore  of  Cook  County  during 
the  past  summer  has  been  observed  to  be  toward  the  north,  but  it  is  possible  that  this 
result  may  be  different  during  the  winter  months.  In  the  open  lake,  wave  action 
seems  to  be  effective  in  preventing  the  permanent  deposits  down  to  a  depth  of  about 
60  feet;  inside  of  the  breakwater  sewage  deposits  are  found  on  the  bottom. 

The  general  deduction  from  these  results  is  clear  that,  as  no  constant  current  exists 
which  would  carry  the  sewage  away  in  one  direction,  it  should  be  discharged  into 
the  lake  at  one  end  of  the  future  city,  while  the  water  supply  should  be  obtained  as 
far  away  from  it  as  practicable  toward  the  other  end,  a  conclusion  which  is  being 
acted  upon  in  the  other  large  lake  cities.  The  proper  place  from  which  to  bring  the 
water  would  be  opposite  Grosse  Point,  and  the  sewage  discharge  should  be  east  of 
Hyde  Park.  While  it  might  be  practicable  to  allow  the  sewage  in  its  crude  form  to 
enter  the  lake  under  such  conditions  for  many  years,  the  necessity  would  arise  later 
for  clarifying  it  at  least  partially^  previous  to  its  discharge.  1 1  could  not  be  allowed  to 
run  into  the  river  as  at  present,  but  the  dry^  weather  flow  and  a  considerable  amount 
of  storm  water  would  have  to  be  intercepted  and  carried  to  the  outfall  through  many 
miles  of  specdal  conduits.  This  entire  quantity  would  have  to  be  raised  by  pumping 
in  order  to  get  sufficient  head  to  empty  into  the  lake,  wliile  the  diluted  sewage  during 
storms,  in  excess  of  the  capacity  of  the  intercepting  sewers,  would  ):>e  allowed  to  dis¬ 
charge  directly  into  the  river. 

The  water  supply  would  have  to  be  brought  from  Grosse  Point  in  large  conduits 
to  the  several  pumping  stations  scattered  over  the  city  and  its  present  suburbs.  The 
circulation  of  the  water  in  the  Chicago  River  and  branches  would  have  to  be  main¬ 
tained  practically  as  it  is  at  present,  because  the  removal  merely  of  the  dry-weather 
flow  of  sewage  would  not  altogether  preAmnt  its  pollution. 

DISPOSAL  OP  LAND, 

We  shall  not  at  this  time  enter  into  a  general  discussion  of  the  principles  underlying 
land  purification  of  sewage  or  make  historical  references  showing  the  succe.ss  or  ill 
success  of  the  method  as  practiced  elsewhere.  We  will  simply  state  that  with  good 
management  under  ordinarily  favorable  conditions  a  disposal  on  land  proves  satis¬ 
factory,  so  far  as  the  purifications  of  the  sewage  is  concerned,  and  that  with  proper 
conditions  in  the  way  of  good  markets  and  a  favorable  soil  and  climate  sewage  farms 
can  be  operated  on  a  large  scale  after  the  sewage  is  delivered  upon  the  same  without 
financial  loss. 

In  speaking  of  a  sewage  farm  of  the  magnitude  required  for  the  metropolitan  area 
of  Chicago,  it  is  not  understood  as  being  land  devoted  primarily  to  the  raising  of  crops, 
using  the  sewage  only^  when  and  where  it  would  most  promote  the  growth  of  vegetation. 
The  primary^  object  would  be  the  purification  of  the  sewage  on  an  area  of  land  as  small 
as  could  serve  the  purpose.  Technically  speaking,  the  seAvage  disposal  would  be 
by  means  of  intermittent  filtration  rather  than  irrigation .  To  cany  out  such  a  scheme 
for  Chicago  involves  the  following: 

(1)  The  acquirement  of  sufficient  land  suitable  for  the  purpose, 

(2)  A  comprehensiA^e  sy'^stem  of  intercepting  and  collecting  seAvers  carrying  the 
sewage  to  the  farm. 

(3) "  Pumping  works  of  a  capacity  to  handle  all  the  dry-weather  flow  of  sewage  and 
a  certain  proportion  of  storm  water. 

(4)  A  thorough  underdrainage,  leveling,  and  preparing  of  beds  for  the  filtration  areas. 


I,  INTERNATIONAL  WATERWAYS  COMMISSION  PROGRESS  REPORT.  83 

(5)  A  system  of  underground  conduits  and  surface  carriers  for  distributing  the  sewage 
over  the  ground  and  a  system  of  open  ditches  for  removing  tlie  ])uri(ied  water  to  the 
I  nearest  water  courses. 

,  (fi)  Ihiildings,  roads,  and  a  complete  farming  outfit. 

!’  (7)  An  organization  for  properly  distributing  the  sewage,  for  carrying  on  the  farming 

operations,  for  conducting  the  business  of  dis])osing  of  the  crops  in  the  best  market. 

In  making  estimates  for  the  size  of  intercepting  sewers,  conduits,  pumps,  and  area  of 
land  required  we  have  used  as  a  basis  a  population  of  2,500,000  peopl(\  Avith  an  average 
!  dry-weather  sewage  discharge  of  150  gallons,  or  20  cubic  feet,  per  head  daily,  and  made 

r  provision  for  storm  water  equivalent  to  one-lifth  of  an  inch  in  24  hours  over  all 
portions  of  the  district  now  drained  or  likely  to  be  drained  l)y  a  combined  system  of 
sewers,  allowing  surplus  water  to  escape  into  the  rivers  and  lakes. 

The  dry-weather  flow  of  sewage  would  therefore  be  50,000,000  cubic  feet  per  day,  and 
I  the  maximum  flow  of  storm  water  05,000,000  cubic  feet  per  day,  making  a  total  maxi- 
[.  mum  discharge  of  115,000,000  cubic  feet. 

I  From  an  examination  of  rainfall  tables  we  conclude  that  the  annual  amount  of  storm 
[|  water  that  would  be  carried  off  by  such  an  intercepting  system  would  range  from  9  to  12 
1  inches,  an  average  of  which  in  round  numbers  may  be  taken  at  40,000  cubic  feet  per 
acre  per  annum  over  the  area  drained  by  a  combined  system  of  sewers.  It  is  practi- 
,  cable,  however,  to  exclude  the  storm  water  from  the  sewers  over  a  large  portion  of  the 
future  cdty  by  adoiiting  the  separate  system  of  sewerage.  The  area  north  of  the  town  of 
Jefferson  and  of  the  middle  of  Lakeview  may  be  treated  to  advantage  in  this  way,  and 
.  also  a  large  portion  of  Hyde  Park,  Lake  Calumet,  and  other  adjoining  towns. 

Assuming  that  the  area  which  does  not  allow  the  storm  water  to  be  entirely  excluded 
.  is  140  square  miles,  the  average  daily  amount  becomes  10, 000, 000  cubic  feet,  which 
1  gives,  when  added  to  the  sewage.  60,000,000  cubic  feet,  or  24  cubic  feet  per  head  of 
population  per  day  to  be  provided  for  on  the  farm. 

As  the  amount  of  land  required  to  purify  sewage  can  only  be  determined  by  experi- 
'  ence,  and  as  this  has  been  very  limited  in  our  own  country,  we  are  forced  to  rely  maiidy 
i  upon  that  of  Europe.  Without  going  into  details  at  present,  we  will  simply  state  that 

It  a  fair  consensus  of  this  experience  justifies  us  in  the  conclusion  that  from  10,000  to 
15.000  acres  of  land  would  be  required  to  dispose  of  the  sewage  from  the  entire  metro- 
j  politan  area. 

!  The  only  available  territory  for  sewage  filtration  in  the  neighborhood  of  Chicago  con- 
*  sists  of  two  sandy  ridges  in  the  town  of  Thornton,  extending  across  the  State  line  into 
Indiana,  and  in  a  sandj'^  ridge  crossing  the  town  of  Niles.  The  soil  is  quite  favorable, 
but  the  character  of  the  surface  is  such  that  the  necessary  pre})aration  to  make  it  suit¬ 
able  for  filtration  beds  would  be  comparatively  expensive.  An  enormous  cost  is,  how¬ 
ever.  represented  by  the  fact  that  the  sewage  would  have  to  be  collected  by  large  inter¬ 
cepting  sewers,  lifted  altogether  some  90  feet,  and  carried  about  20  miles  before  reach¬ 
ing  the  farms.  We  therefore  consider  such  a  project  entirely  impracticable. 

The  land  treatment  can  only  be  seriously  thought  of  in  connection  with  the  sewage 
disposal  from  the  smaller  areas  mentioned  above  and  comprising  the  extreme  northern 
and  southern  parts  of  the  future  metropolis.  The  drainage  of  parts  of  Evanston,  Lake- 
view,  and  Niles  might  be  taken  to  the  sandy  ground  in  the  latter  towm,  and  that  of  the 
Calumet  region  to  the  sandy  ridges  in  Thornton,  should  this  method  l.)e  found  most 
advantageous  when  compared  with  others. 

The  preliminary  investigation  made  for  this  purpose  consisted  in  an  examination  of 
I  the  grounds,  in  the  projection  of  a  farm,  and  in  an  estimate  of  the  cost  of  preparing  the 
same  and  delivering  the  sewage  to  it  by  intercepting  sewers  and  conduits. 

DISCHARGE  OF  THE  SEWAGE  INTO  THE  DES  PLAINES  RIVER. 

A  third  solution  of  the  drainage  problem  is  rendered  practicable  by  the  fact  that  the 
1  divide  between  Lake  Michigan  and  the  ^lississijjpi  Valley  lies  about  10  miles  west  of 
Chicago,  with  so  slight  an  elevation  that  it  is  not  a  difficult  matter  to  carry  the  sewage 
f  from  the  city  westward  into  the  Des  Plaines  River,  and  thence  into  the  Mississippi 
,  River.  The  method  of  disposal,  as  previously  explained,  is  in  fact  mainly  the  present 
one,  most  of  the  sewage  now  being  carried  across  the  divide  l)y  the  Illinois  and  ^lichi- 
gan  Canal. 

There  are  two  low  depressions  between  the  future  metropolis  and  the  Des  Plaines 
River — the  Mud  Lake  Valley,  ivith  the  present  canal,  and  the  Sag  Valley,  west  of  Lake 
Calumet.  Neither  is  more  than  10  feet  above  the  lake,  nor  do  they  present  any  engi¬ 
neering  difficulties  for  canal  construction.  It  is  therefore  quite  feasible  to  carry  all  the 
.  drainage  from  the  territory  ultimately  to  be  occupied  by  the  metropolis,  extending 
from  Lake  Calumet  to  Evanston,  into  the  MissLsip])i  Valley  through  these  depressions, 
avoiding  thereby  all  possible  lake  pollution  and  permitting  the  supply  of  water  to  be 
drawn  from  any  number  of  convenient  points  in  front  of  the  city. 


84  INTEENATIONAL  AVATERWAYS  COMMISSION  PROGRESS  REPORT. 


The  possibility  of  this  solution  was  recognized  as  early  as  185(3  by  Mr.  E.  S.  Ches- 
brough,  and  the  iiret  stej)  toward  its  adoption  was  taken,  as  already  mentioned,  by  turn¬ 
ing  the  sew^age  into  the  Illinois  and  Michigan  Canal.  Not  until  quite  recently,  how¬ 
ever,  has  it  become  practicable  to  consider  the  construction  of  a  special  waterway  for 
sewage  removal,  because  when  the  population  was  smaller  the  expense  of  the  under¬ 
taking  was  too  great. 

The  sanitary  requirements  demand  a  flow  of  water  large  enough  to  dilute  the  sewage 
sufficiently  to  make  it  inoffensive  along  the  river  at  all  times.  Beyond  this,  any 
increase  in  the  size  of  the  channel  to  provide  for  the  storm  water  which  naturally  enters 
it  should  be  kept  at  a  minimum.  A  glance  at  the  map  and  an  examination  of  the 
ground  show  the  possibility  of  diverting  the  greater  part  of  the  storm  water  from  the 
metropolitan  district  without  serious  difficulty.  Both  branches  of  the  Calumet  Eiver 
can  be  diverted  west  of  the  Indiana  State  line  into  Wolf  Lake,  and  thence  into  Lake 
Michigan.  The  Des  Plaines  River  can  have  its  flood  waters  diverted  into  the  North 
Branch  near  the  north  line  of  the  town  of  Jefferson,  and  the  combined  waters  can  be  led 
from  Bowmanville  directly  into  the  lake.  Salt  Creek,  a  branch  of  the  Des  Plaines 
River,  can  readily  lie  turned  southwardly  near  Western  Springs,  through  a  water  course 
known  as  Flag  Creek,  at  one  time  evidently  its  old  bed,  discharging  into  the  Des  Plaines 
opposite  Sag,  and  thus  reducing  the  necessary  storm-water  capacity  in  the  new  channel 
between  Sag  and  Summit. 

In  order  to  determine  the  jirobable  quantity  of  flood  water  which  can  thus  be 
excluded,  it  w'as  necessary  to  ascertain  the  maximum  flood  discharges  from  all  the 
watersheds  in  question.  This  requiiement  called  for  a  gauging  of  Des  Plaines,  North 
Branch,  and  Calumet  Rivers;  a  gauging  of  the  rainfall,  which  is  a  measure  of  the 
.stream  flow;  a  survey  of  the  watersheds;  and  an  examination  of  the  river  channels. 
It  was  also  necessary  to  make  a  reconnoissnace  of  all  possible  lines  for  diverting  the 
Des  Plaines,  North  Branch,  and  Calumet  Lavers,  and  Salt  Creek,  and  a  survey  of 
those  which  were  most  important. 

The  results  indicate  that  each  one  of  these  diversions  is  both  practical  and  econom¬ 
ical.  By  adopting  the  “separate  system”  of  sewerage  for  the  territory  lying  north  of 
the  proposed  Bowmanville  channel,  the  surface  drainage  from  this  territory  can  be 
safely  turned  into  the  lake. 

A  second  branch  of  the  investigation  extends  to  the  elements  governing  the  proper 
size  of  the  waterway  from  which  a  large  proportion  of  the  storm  water  has  been 
excluded.  The  area  still  draining  into  it  will  consist  largely  of  paved  streets  and  roofs, 
allowing  of  no  absorption  and  shedding  the  water  rapidly.  It  requnes  a  careful  con¬ 
sideration  to  determine  the  maximum  quantity  of  w^ater  that  may  enter  the  proposed 
channel,  and  for  which  an  ample  allow^ance  must  be  made  to  prevent  a  back  flow  of 
the  polluted  w^ater  to  the  lake. 

The  proper  degree  of  sewage  pollution  in  the  new  channel  demanded  a  careful  inves¬ 
tigation.  MRen  sew^age  is  mingled  with  a  sufficiently  large  ciuantity  of  w^ater  it  not 
only  becomes  inoffensive,  but  readily  finds  the  oxygen  which  gradually  purifies  it. 
When  the  surface  is  covered  wdth  ice  a  gi eater  dilution  is  necessary  for  this  purpose 
than  at  other  times  when  there  is  a  constant  replenishment  of  oxygen  from  the  air. 
The  proposed  w^ater way  should,  of  course,  provide  immunity  from  offense  at  all  times. 

The  information  upon  wdiich  definitely  to  decide  this  question  will  be  given  in  the 
final  report,  as  the  data  have  not  yet  been  all  collected,  owing  to  the  necessity  of 
making  actual  tests  of  the  oxidization  of  the  canal  water  under  the  ice,  wffiich  is  being 
done  for  the  use  of  the  commission  by  Dr.  J.  11.  Rauch,  secretary  of  the  State  board  of 
health.  The  summer  conditions  are  presented  in  his  late  report  on  the  water  supply 
and  sewage  disposal  of  Chicago.  The  result  of  these  analyses  will  be  compared  with 
those  of  other  streams  that  are  also  polluted  with  sew^age,  in  order  to  show  the  rate  of 
oxidization  with  varying  degrees  of  dilution  and  aeration. 

For  the  purpose  of  estimating  the  cost  of  the  water  channel  we  have  assumed  3,600 
square  feet  for  the  cross  section  and  a  velocity  of  the  water  3  feet  per  second,  or  2  miles 
per  hour.  This  gives  a  discharge  of  600,000  cubic  feet  of  water  per  minute,  or  24,000 
cubic  feet  for  each  100,000  persons,  which  we  believe  equal  to  the  maximum  require¬ 
ments  of  a  population  of  2,500,000  people. 

A  third  branch  of  the  inquiry  covers  the  selection  of  routes  for  the  proposed  canals. 

Between  Chicago  and  Summit  three  lines  are  practicable — one  followmg  the  West 
Fork  and  Ogden  ditch,  and  another  extending  from  the  southwestern  end  of  the  South 
Fork  in  a  westerly  direction  to  the  Ogden  ditch,  and  thence  to  Summit,  and  a  third 
being  an  enlargement  of  the  present  canal.  We  are  of  the  opinion  that  eventually 
both  the  first  and  second  of  these  lines  should  be  adopted,  but  that  the  second  one 
should  be  built  first  in  order  to  secure  cii’culation  in  the  South  Fork.  From  Summit 
westward  the  bed  of  the  river  and  the  present  canal  were  the  only  lines  to  be  con¬ 
sidered.  The  best  location  has  not  yet  been  finally  determined. 


j  INTERNATIONAL  WATERWAYS  COMMISSION  PROGRESS  REPORT.  85 


For  the  drainage  of  the  Calumet  region  a  sim])le  inspection  shows  that  a  canal  should 
start  from  the  river  at  the  southern  })oint  of  Blue  Island  and  extend  almost  directly 

westward  to  the  Des  Plaines  Valley  at  Sag.  ,  ,  ,  ,  e  x 

A  fourth  branch  of  the  inquiry  relates  to  the  study  of  such  data  as  have  reference  to 
securing  a  proper  circulation  for  the  waterways  within  the  city. 

To  throw  light  upon  this  iioint  the  variations  of  the  lake  level  have  been  recorded 
since  last  spring  by  means  of  an  automatic  gauge,  indicating  an  almost  continual  fluc¬ 
tuation  averaging  several  inches,  and  recurring  at  periods  of  about  20  niinutes. 
During  a  low  pressure  of  the  atmosphere  the  amplitude  of  these  oscillations  increases, 
and  not  infrequently  reaches  several  feet.  The  accompanying  diagram  ^  shows  the 
level  of  the  lake  on  xAugust  16,  1880,  at  a  time  when  an  area  of  low  barometer  Passed 
over  it.  From  6.40  a.  m.  to  6.55  a.  m.— that  is,  in  15  minutes— the  water  fell  2  feet  10 

A  rising  level  causes  an  inflow  to  the  river  and  drives  the  water  of  the  latter  into  the 
slips,  where  it  deposits  a  portion  of  its  suspended  sewage  matter  and  beconies  foul. 

A  falling  level  reverses  the  flow,  and  the  slips  empty  their  foul  watei  into  the  iivei 
and  lake.  During  heavy  fluctuations  of  the  latter,  such  as  the  one  referred  to  above, 
it  has  been  traced  more  "than  a  mile  in  the  direction  of  the 

As  the  proposed  canal  from  Bowmanville  to  the  lake  will  lower  the  water  of  the 
North  Branch  at  this  point  to  the  lake  level,  provision  must  be  made  for  its  cnculatioii 
The  size  of  the  Fullerton  Avenue  conduit  is  not  suflicient  to  furnish  the  water  required 
for  a  current  in  both  directions,  nor  would  such  an  arrangement  be  satisfactory  or 
economical.  It  will  lie  necessary  to  establish  a  flow  toward  the  South  Branch  from 
the  lake  opposite  Bowmanville  in  order  to  prevent  a  future  lake  pollution  by  the 
posed  channel.  This  can  be  accomplished  by  placing  a  lock  in  the  North  Branch 
at  any  point  that  may  be  found  most  deshable  and  raising  the  water  at  the  same  time 
about  1  foot.  If  such  a  lock  is  placed  at  Fullerton  Avenue,  the  present  pumping 

works,  with  slight  modifications,  can  be  utilized.  ,  .  ,  i  + 

Finally,  it  must  be  mentioned  that  circulation  can  be  secured  in  the  proposed  water¬ 
ways  of  the  Calumet  region,  into  which  the  sewage  is  discharged,  by  a  gravity  flow 
from  Lake  Michigan  into  the  Des  Plaines  Valley  through  Lake  Calumet  and  the  bag. 
The  detailed  features  of  this  project  have  not  yet  been  wholly  matured,  tlie  estimates 
of  cost  being  based  on  a  channel  having  a  capacity  of  1,000  cubic  feet  per  second. 

COMPARISON  OF  PROJECTS. 

In  the  foregoing  we  have  outlined  the  main  features  of  the  only  three  feasible  nieth- 
ods  of  disposing  of  the  metropolitan  sewage,  and  have  given  the  results  of  the  investiga¬ 
tion  reached  to  date.  A  general  conclusion  as  to  the  preferable  method  may  be  given 
at  present,  and  also  an  approximate  estimate  of  cost.  But  we  are  not  able  as  yet  to 
give  either  conclusions  or  detailed  statements  of  the  probable  expense  regarding  a 
parts  of  the  proposed  work,  and  must  defer  them  until  the  final  repoit. 

In  comparing  the  projects  we  will  first  mention  their  probable  cost  and  then  then 

relative  advantages.  .  , aaa  • 

The  discharge  of  the  sewage  into  the  lake  from  a  population  of  2,500,000  in  the  man¬ 
ner  described  above,  including  the  extra  expense,  otherwise  not  necessaTy  of  taking 
the  water  supply  of  Grosse  Point,  would  cost  at  least  $37,000,000,  wit^  _ 
expense  for  interest  and  operation  of  at  least  $2,400,000.  It  would  requiie  an  iinm 

diate  investment  of  about  $20,000,000.  at  ,•  i  i  vAmiirA  nn 

To  dispose  of  the  entire  metropolitan  sewage  by  filtration  on 
investment  of  about  $58,000,000,  with  an  annual  expense  of  over  $3,000  000  for  interest, 
pumping,  and  maintenance,  after  deducting  the  profit  from  the 
Luld  be  necessary  to  invest  at  once  about  $34,000,000.  Land  disposal  for  the  sewage 
from  the  Calumet  region  alone,  with  a  future  population  of  300,000  would  require  an 
investment  of  about  $4,000,000  and  an  annual  expense  of  at  least  $250,000. 

Finally,  the  cost  of  the  Des  Plaines  project  is  approximately  estimated  as  lollop s- 

1.  A  channel  from  the  South  Fork  to  Joliet  of  the  capacity  heretofore  given  will  cost 

between  $17,000,000  and  $21,000,000.  ,  at  t)  QaIi 

2.  A  diversion  of  the  flood  waters  of  the  Des  Plaines,  the  North  Branch,  and  Salt 

Creek  will  cost  between  $2,500,000  and  $2,800,000.  fticinnnn 

3.  Pumping  works  and  locks  for  the  North  Branch  will  cost  about  $150  000 

4.  A  separate  system  of  sewers  to  collect  the  sewage  now  discharged  direct  y 
lake  and  to  carry  it  into  the  river  will  cost  about  $600,000. 

5.  A  channel  from  Lake  Calumet  to  Sag  will  cost  between  $2  o00,000  f 

6.  A  diversion  of  the  flood  waters  of  the  Calumet  River  will  cost  between  $3o0,000 

and  $400,000.  _ 


1  Omitted;  printed  in  House  Ex.  Doc.  No.2G4,  51st  Cong.,  1st  sess. 


86  TNTEENATIOXAL  WATERWAl’S  COMMISSION  PROGRESS  REPORT. 


The  total  cost  of  the  Des  Plaines  drainap^e  project  would  therefore  be,  for  the  main 
^20,250,000  and  124,550,000;  for  the  Calumet  district,  between 
13,400,000.  The  annual  cost,  including  interest,  etc.,  is  estimated  at 
about  11,300,000  per  annum. 

The  pollution  of  the  lake  can  be  decreased  and  the  present  condition  of  the  Chicago 
xviver,  and  particularly  of  the  South  Fork,  can  be  improved  by  the  immediate  con- 
following  works,  which,  with  the  exception  of  the  pumping  works  at 
the  South  Fork  discharging  into  the  Illinois  &  Michigan  Canal,  are  all  a  part  of  the 
final  plan:  ^ 

1.  Channels  diverting  the  flood  waters  of  the  Des  Plaines,  North  Branch,  and  Salt 
Creek,  as  described  above. 

2  A  modification  of  the  Fullerton  Avenue  pumping  station  and  the  construction  of 
locks  tor  the  purpose  of  getting  circulation  in  the  North  Branch. 

3.  A  separate  system  of  sewers  to  collect  the  sewage  now  flowing  into  the  lake  from 
the  south  division  and  to  discharge  it  into  the  South  Fork. 

4  A  waterway  extending  from  the  western  end  of  the  South  Fork  to  the  Illinois  & 
Michigan  Canal,  with  a  new  pumping  station  to  promote  circulation. 

^  5.  By  raising  the  banks  of  the  canal  and  by  removing  deposits  this  capacity  can  be 
inci eased  40  per  cent  at  a  small  cost,  and  thus  provide  for  a  greater  flow  of  water  in  the 
same. 

The  cost  of  the  works  comprised  under  these  five  items  is  estimated  to  be  between 
$5,000,000  and  $5,500,000.  They  could  be  finished  in  three  years,  and  would  greatly 
lessen  the  liability  of  polluting  the  water  supply,  while  the  sewage  would  be  disposed 
ot  in  the  best  practicable  manner  until  the  final  completion  of  the  Des  Plaines  project. 

It  therefore  appears  that  this  project  is  decidedly  the  least  expensive  one  for  the 
present  as  well  as  for  the  future. 

Besides  the  economical  advantage  of  the  Des  Plaines  scheme,  its  superiority  is  still 
further  emphasized  by  advantages  of  another  kind.  The  proposed  canal  will,  from  its 
necessary  dimensions  and  its  regular  discharge,  produce  a  magnificent  waterway 
between  Chicago  and  the  Mississippi  River,  suitable  for  the  navigation  of  boats  having 
as  rnuch  as  2,000  tons  burden.  It  will  establish  an  available  water  power  between 
Dockport  and  Marseilles  fully  twice  as  large  as  that  of  the  Mississippi  River  at  Minne¬ 
apolis,  which  will  be  of  great  commercial  value  to  the  State.  The  Calumet  region  will 
be  much  enhanced  in  value  by  having  a  direct  navigable  channel  to  the  Des  Plaines 
River  and  by  a  lowering  of  the  flood  heights  of  Calumet  Lake  and  River.  Within  the 
city  the  water  of  the  Chicago  River  and  its  South  Branch  will  get  a  much  better  circu- 
ation  if  it  flows  by  gravity  than  if  it  has  to  be  pumped,  the  necessity  for  which  would 
remain  even  if  the  sewage  should  be  discharged  through  intercepting  sewers,  either 
into  the  lake  or  upon  land.  Upon  either  of  the  latter  conditions  an  occasional  over- 
rmw  from  the  sewers  into  the  river  during  heavy  rains  would  be  more  objectionable 
than  a  constant  discharge  of  sewage  into  a  more  rapidly  flowing  stream.  Flood  waters 
entering  the  lake  by  way  of  the  Chicago  River  would  carry  into  it  much  filthy  matter, 
either  suspended  or  deposited,  notwithstanding  the  existence  of  intercepting  sewers 
but  the  proposed  diversion  of  such  waters  before  reaching  the  populated  districts  will 
mr  all  time  obviate  this  undesirable  occurrence.  Lowering  the  level  of  the  North 
Branch  at  Bowmanville  by  its  diversion  to  the  lake  will  be  equivalent  to  raising  the  low 
prairie  extending  toward  Evanston  and  Niles  and  greatly  benefit  parts  of  these  towns. 


THE  WATER  SUPPLY. 

conclusion  that  the  sewage  of  the  city  should  be  discharged  into 
f^fsissippi  \  alley  the  question  of  water  supply  is  materially  simplified,  because 
tPe  lake  will  then  at  all  times  furnish  good  water  wherever  intakes  are  desired  for  an 
extension  of  the  works. 

^  The  preliminary  inquiry  made  with  a  view  to  ascertain  the  main  features  of  an 
increased  supply  comprised,  first,  a  compilation  of  data  concerning  the  existing  works 
both  in  Chicago  and  its  suburban  towns,  which  were  collected  mainly  through  the 
courtesy  of  the  respective  authorities;  and,  secondlv,  a  study  into  the  most  econom- 
ical  method  of  distributing  the  water  over  the  metropolitan  area.  The  following  is 
a  brief  description  of  the  existing  works: 

^  The  present  intake  for  the  public  water  supply  of  Chicago  is  located  in  Lake  Mich- 
^an,  about  2  miles  from  shore,  and  the  water  is  conducted  to  the  city  in  two  circular 
brmk  tunnels  5  and  7  feet  in  diameter.  They  extend  parallel  to  each  other  under  the 
bed  of  the  lake,  and  50  feet  apart,  to  the  north  pumping  works,  where  they  are  con¬ 
nected  and  where  the  5-foot  tunnel  terminates.  The  7-foot  tunnel  is  continued  under 

^  distance  of  20,500  feet,  to  siipplv  the  west  works,  on  Ashland  Avenue 
and  Twenty-second  Street. 


!  INTERNATIONAL  WATEKWAIS  COMMISSION  PROGRESS  REPORT.  87 

I  The  tunnels  from  the  source  to  the  shore  are  built  at  a  dejjth  of  80  feet  below  city 
I  datum,  or  low  water  in  the  lake,  and  the  7-foot  tunnel  is  continued  on  the  same  level 
1  for  a  distance  of  about  11,500  feet,  where,  to  avoid  rock  excavation,  it  is  inclined 
upward  until,  at  the  west  pumping  station,  the  top  is  but  21  feet  below  city  datum. 
The  economical  capacity  of  the  two  tunnels  is  between  90,000,000  and  100,000,000  gal- 
,■  Ions  per  dav,  or  less  than  the  present  average  daily  consumption  of  water.  Their 
maximum  capacity  is  reached  when  delivering  about  150,000,000  gallons  per  day, 
which  is  now  nearly  equaled  by  the  demand  during  the  hours  of  greatest  consumption, 

^  and  at  the  present  rate  of  increase  it  is  estimated  that  during  the  summer  of  1887  the 
maximum  demand  for  water  will  be  at  the  rate  of  145,000,000  gallons  per  day;  during 
1888, 150,000,000  gallons  per  day;  during  1899, 167,000,000  gallons  per  day;  and  in  1899, 

180,000,000  gallons  per  day.  . 

To  provide  against  accident  or  obstruction  from  ice  or  other  cause  in  the  main  tun¬ 
nels,  and  to  provide  against  an  inadequate  supply  in  the  near  future,  which  appeared 
inevitable,  a  new  tunnel  is  in  progress  of  construction.  The  intake  is  located  1,500 
feet  from  shore,  and  connection  is  made  with  the  other  tunnels  at  the  north  pumping 

1  works.  , 

The  distribution  of  the  water  is  effected  by  pumping  it  directly  into  the  water  mains 
,  at  the  north  and  west  stations.  At  the  north  works  the  three  tunnels  are  so  arranged 
and  constructed  that  any  one  of  them  can  be  emptied  when  desired  for  repairs  or  clean- 
incr  and  both  the  pumping  stations  still  be  supplied  with  water  from  the  other  tunnels. 

.  The  total  pumping  capacity  of  this  station  is  at  present  67,000,000  gallons  per  day,  but 
it  will  be  increased  to  91,000,000  gallons  per  day  as  soon  as  the  new  pumps  now  in 

I  process  of  erection  are  in  operation. 

I  The  connections  between  the  pumps,  standpipes,  and  the  distribution  mains  at 
i  these  works  have  become  so  complex  by  the  successive  additions  to  the  plant  that  an 
•  unnecessary  loss  of  head  is  the  consequence.  As  this  can  be  remedied  to  some  extent 
without  great  expense,  we  recommend  that  it  be  done  at  the  first  favorable  opportunity. 

I  'fbe  station  being  on  the  shore  of  the  lake  is  not  centrally  located  with  reference  to 
f  any  part  of  the  city,  which  renders  it  necessary  to  use  a  greater  length  of  mam  pipe, 
with  a  consequent  loss  of  pressure,  to  reach  the  consumers  than  would  otherwise  be 
{  the  case.  The  total  pumping  capacity  of  the  west  side  station  is  60,000,000  gallons 
'  per  day,  and  the  connections  between  the  pumps,  standpipes,  and  mains  are  simple 
‘  and  effective,  and  the  loss  of  pressure  from  this  cause  is  a  minimum.  The  location 
'  is  better  adapted  to  secure  economical  and  satisfactory  results  than  that  of  the  north 
works,  and  with  reference  to  additional  pumping  stations,  which  will  later  be  neces¬ 
sary  in  other  parts  of  the  city,  these  works  are  well  situated.  _ 

The  following  table  compiled  from  the  annual  reports  for  1884  and  188o  gives  a 
detailed  comparison  of  the  cost  of  pumping  at  two  stations,  anthracite  coal  being  used 
at  the  north  side  and  good  bituminous  coal  at  the  west  side: 

Cost  of  pumping  1,000  f  00  gallons  1  foot  high} 


Nature  of  expenditures. 

1884 

1885 

North  side. 

West  side. 

North  side. 

W  est  side. 

Raloripc  . 

so. 01488 
.05;U3 
.0(X)64 
.  0032:i 

SO. 02022 
.02855 
.00186 
.00417 

$0. 01560 
. 04590 
.00057 
.00133 

SO. 01667 
.  02482 
. 00160 
.  00401 

Miscellaneous . 

Total  - . 

.07188 

.05480 

.06:140 

.04710 

*  1  Here  appears  a  “diagram  showing  water  pressure  in  the  Chicago  water  pipes,”  not  here  reproduced. 

The  hydraulic  merits  of  the  system  are  shown  on  the  diagram  of  water  pressures 
from  a  survey  made  in  December,  1886.  The  pressures  have  all  been  reduced  to  a 
common  height  above  city  datum  and  to  a  uniform  height  of  water  at  the  works. 
‘  That  diagram  shows  a  greater  loss  of  head  in  the  vicinity  of  the  north  side  station 
than  at  the  west  side.  This  is  accounted  for  by  the  complex  arrangements  heretofore 
mentioned  and  also  by  the  relatively  small  area  of  mains,  being  only  16^  square  feet 
'  at  the  north  side  and  over  21  square  feet  at  the  west  side.  Nearly  equal  cpiantities 
of  water  are  pumped  at  each  of  the  stations  during  the  middle  of  the  day. 


If 


r 

if 


88  INTEIiNATiOXAL  WATERWAYS  COMMISSION  PROGRESS  REPORT. 


The  following  table  shows  the  pumping  capacity  of  all  the  suburban  towns  having 
a  public  water  supply  and  the  pressure  ordinarily  maintained  at  the  works.  With 
the  exception  of  South  Evanston,  all  take  water  from  Lake  Michigan: 


Locality. 

Individual  pump 
capacity. 

Total 
pumping 
capacity 
per  day. 

Ordinary 
head  at 

Pumps.  Capacity 
^  per  day. 

pump,  in 
feet. 

Hyde  Tark . 

Gallons. 

2  1  3,000,000 

1  ;  12,000,000 

2  4,000,000 

2  2, 000, 000 

1  1  5,000,000 

1  i  3,  000,  000 

1  2, 000. 000 

1  3, 000, 000 

Do . 

18, 000, 000 

1  no  1  Kn 

Lake . 

to  ioU 

Do . 

12, 000, 000 

inn  inn 

Lake  View . 

lUU  to  lyu 

Do . 

10, 000, 000 

QO 

Do . 

92 

09 

Village  of  Evanston . 

3, 000, 000 

Total . 

11 

43, 000, 000 

At  the  artesian  well  supplying  the  village  of  South  Evanston  there  is  a  head  of 
about  53  feet. 

The  pressure  at  different  parts  of  the  pipe  system  is  very  irregular.  In  Hyde  Park 
it  varies  from  165  feet  at  the  pumps  to  10  or  12  feet  at  Forty-third  Street.  In  the  town 
of  Lake  the  average  head  at  the  town  hall  is  reported  about  10  feet,  with  188  feet  at 
the  pumps.  In  Evanston,  South  Evanston,  and  Lake  View  the  difference  of  head  in 
various  parts  of  the  villages  is  not  very  great. 

The  following  table  gives  a  comparison  of  the  consumption  and  cost  of  water  in 
Chicago  and  the  suburban  towns: 


Locality. 

Year. 

A  verage 
head  at 
pumps. 

Average 

daily 

pumpage. 

Cost  per 
1,000,000 
gallons, 
delivered. 

Cost  of 
pumping 
1,000,000 
gallons  1 
foot  high. 

Chicago  (north  side) . 

Chicago  (west  side) . 

Evanston  (village) . 

Lake  V  iew . 

1885 

1885 
1880 

1886 
1886 
1886 

113 

105 

113 

38, 369, 134 
53,280,880 
■  787, 000 
1,  983, 000 
7,292,023 
3,  410, 000 

$7.17 
4.95 
17.00 
11.85 
8. 80 
8.92 

.$0. 06034 
.04071 
.15000 

.05400 

Town  of  Lake . 

Hvde  Park . 

163 

The  second  point  of  inquiry  was  a  study  into  the  most  economical  method  of  dis¬ 
tributing  the  water  oyer  the  metropolitan  area.  We  will  at  present  refer  to  it  but 
very  briefly,  mentioning  only  such  conclusions  as  pertain  to  the  immediate  demands 
and  leaving  a  fuller  discussion  of  the  details  of  this  important  question  to  the  final 
report. 

The  comparatively  level  area  upon  which  the  city  is  located,  and  the  practicability 
of  taking  the  water  from  the  lake  along  the  city  front  at  any  desired  point,  after  the 
sewage  has  been  diverted,  permits  the  most  economical  distribution  to  be  ascertained 
by  mathematical  investigation  to  a  much  greater  degree  of  exactness  than  is  usually 
possible. 

It  is  found  to  be  less  expensive  for  the  densely  populated  areas  to  have  pumping 
stations  about  2  or  3  miles  apart,  because  the  loss  of  head  and  cost  of  mains  and  pump¬ 
ing  to  obtain  the  least  allowable  pressure  are  thus  reduced  to  a  minimum.  In  plan¬ 
ning  new  works  this  fact  should  be  considered  and  locations  so  selected  that  they 
will  be  advantageous  for  the  future  as  well  as  for  the  present. 

The  localities  which  we  believe  to  be  most  suitable  for  additional  pumping  stations 
are  near  Twelfth  Street,  in  the  central  part  of  the  city;  near  the  Union  Stock  Yards; 
near  Humboldt  Park,  and  near  Fullerton  and  Racine  Avenues. 

When  it  is  considered  that  at  the  present  time  the  pumps  are  delivering  during  the 
busy  part  of  the  day  at  the  rate  of  120,000,000  gallons  in  twenty-four  hours,  which  is 
nearly  the  maximum  capacity  of  all  the  machinery,  and  that  even  with  this  large 
consumption  of  water  it  is  impossible  in  some  parts  of  the  city  to  obtain  water  in  the 


INTERNATIONAL  WATERWAYS  COMMISSION  PROGRESS  REPORT.  89 


X  iecond  story  of  the  buildings,  it  becomes  evident  that  an  increased  supply  is  impera- 
r  tively  required,  and  being  a  work  of  years  to  build  new  tunnels,  inlets,  buildings,  and 
Ij  machinery,  the  necessity  of  deciding  upon  the  location  of  the  now  works  as  soon  as 
I  possible  is  readily  seen.  The  locality  which  is  suffering  most  from  the  want  of  water 
I  is  the  business  section  and  the  south  part  of  the  city,  the  lowest  pressure  extending 

j,  from  Twelfth  Street  to  the  city  limits.  It  will  become  necessary  in  the  future  to  have 

\  two  stations  in  this  territory — one  between  Harrison  and  Twelfth  Streets  and  the 
other  to  be  somewhere  east  of  the  Union  Stock  Yards.  We  are  strongly  of  the  opinion 
I  that  of  the  two  stations  it  will  be  advisal)le  and  most  advantageous  to  build  the  one 
north  of  Twelfth  Street  first,  for  the  following  reasons: 

1.  It  will  require  a  shorter  tunnel  from  the  lake  to  the  proposed  station  and  less 
expenditure  for  main  discharge  pipes  to  connect  with  the  present  system  than  would 

I  be  the  case  with  the  proposed  southern  station.  This  is  equivalent  to  less  cost  and 
.  a  saving  of  time  in  construction. 

2.  If  the  southern  station  is  built  first  it  will  require  mains  of  larger  capacity  lead¬ 
ing  toward  the  city  than  will  be  ultimately  necessary  when  the  central  station  is  built. 

^  3.  The  location  recommended  is  near  the  center  of  the  greatest  consumption  of 

water,  and  will  be  a  gain  not  only  in  obtaining  greater  pressure  in  the  business  district, 
[  but  in  removing  the  cause  for  complaint  on  the  south  side  by  increasing  the  pressure 

I  so  that  the  water  will  flow  to  the  upper  floors  of  the  highest  dwellings. 

I  4.  All  other  parts  of  the  city  will  gain  by  the  construction  in  this  location,  as  the 
f  north  and  west  works  will  be  relieved  of  the  enormous  drain  upon  them  to  supply 

I  water  for  the  business  part  of  the  city.  They  will  be  better  able  to  give  a  good  head 

jj  on  the  north  and  west  sides,  where  the  population  is  increasing  very  rapidly,  and 
n  which  will  very  soon  be  in  the  same  unsatisfactory  condition  as  now  obtains  in  the 
southern  end  of  the  city  unless  relief  is  afforded  in  the  manner  indicated. 

The  other  pumping  stations  will  gradually  become  necessary  as  the  popula,tioii 
increases,  and  for  a  population  of  2,500,000  there  will  be  a  need  for  a  total  combined 
j  capacity  of  375,000,000  gallons  to  provide  for  a  daily  consumption  of  150  gallons  per 
’  head.  With  several  intakes  and  tunnels  the  danger  from  stoppage  of  the  water 

supply  by  ice  or  accident  will  be  reduced  to  a  minimum,  as  it  is  not  probable  that 

j  more  than  one  of  them  would  be  so  endangered  at  the  same  time. 

I  We  believe  that  a  submerged  intake  will  afford  a  more  reliable  and  safer  structure, 

]  so  far  as  injury  from  passing  vessels  and  stoppage  by  ice  are  concerned,  than  a  structure 
projecting  above  the  warer. 

With  the  sewage  kept  out  of  the  lake  there  is  no  need  of  locating  the  intake  farther 
than  2  miles  from  the  shore,  where  water  can  be  obtained  siifhcieiitly  free  from  sus¬ 
pended  earthy  matter,  and  where  a  depth  of  about  30  feet  is  generally  found,  which 
is  the  least  depth  desirable  for  a  submerged  inlet. 

GENERAL  REMARKS. 

After  presenting  the  results  thus  far  gained,  indicating  the  general  solution  of  the 
Chicago  drainage  and  water-supply  problem,  it  remains  to  point  out  certain  facts 
which  may  be  useful  in  discussing  some  of  the  legal  measures  required  to  carry  out  the 
proposed  work.  We  desire  to  state  that  in  order  to  reach  the  best  results  it  is  impera¬ 
tive  to  have  all  the  main  drainage  works,  such  as  intercepting  sewers,  waterways,  and 
I  pumping  stations,  executed  and  maintained  under  a  single  management.  It  would 
be  economical  also  to  design  and  operate  the  main  works  for  supplying  water  to  the 
entire  metropolitan  area  on  a  uniform  plan  and  under  one  management,  for  the  same 
reason  that  it  is  economical  to  keep  the  north  and  west  side  pumping  works  under  one 
control,  thus  giving  facilities  as  far  as  practicable  for  a  supply  proportioned  to  the 
demand  to  the  entire  metropolitan  area,  including  the  towns  not  bordering  on  the  lake. 

'  We  do  not  wish  to  imply,  however,  that  such  a  genera]  authority  need  necessarily 
extend  further  than  to  the  construction  and  maintenance  of  the  tunnels  and  conduits 
'  furnishing  water  to  the  respective  pumping  works. 

‘  Regarding  the  limits  for  metropolitan  drainage,  the  investig-ation  has  shown,  as 
already  indicated,  that  topographical  conditions  clearly  define  two  districts  for  the 
future  metropolis.  The  main  district  extends  from  the  line  of  Eighty-seventh  Street 
on  the  south  to  the  north  line  of  Evanston  and  from  the  lake  westward  to  the  Des  Plaines 
i  River.  Its  sewage  is  collected  into  one  channel  and  discharged  into  the  Des  Plaines 
Valley  at  Summit.  The  Calumet  district  extends  over  the  natural  drainage  area  of 
('alumet  Lake  and  River  south  of  Eighty-seventh  Street,  and  has  its  outfall  channel 
‘  running  from  Blue  Island  to  Sag. 

The  iinal  report  will  contain  several  maps,  showing  certain  features  of  the  metropoli¬ 
tan  area,  namely,  the  distribution  of  the  population  in  1 88(5,  the  existing  works  and 
main  distribution  pipes  for  water  supply,  and  the  existing  main  sewerage  works  and 


90  INTEKNATIONAL  WATEKWAYS  COMMISSION  PKOGKESS  REPOKT. 


5-foot  contour  lines  over  nearly  the  entire  area.  It  will  also  contain  maps  and  pro¬ 
files  of  the  proposed  waterways  and  storm-water  diversion  channels  mentioned  in 
the  present  report,  and  a  map  showing  the  lines  of  the  main  collecting  and  intercept¬ 
ing  sewers  of  the  proposed  drainage  districts,  and  also  the  lines  of  new  tunnels  and 
the  general  distribution  of  the  water  supply. 

In  carrying  on  the  present  investigation  its  various  branches  are  placed  in  charge  of 
the  following  gentlemen,  of  whose  ability  and  industry  we  desire  to  make  special  men¬ 
tion:  Mr.  L.  E.  Cooley,  principal  assistant,  had  special  charge  of  the  hydrographic 
work;  Mr.  Charles  H.  Swan,  of  the  sewage  disposal  on  land;  Mr.  Francis  Murphy,  of 
the  topographical  work;  Mr.  O.  Guthrie,  of  the  river  pollution,  land  damages,  etc.,  and 
Mr.  T.  T.  Johnson,  of  the  water  supply,  sewerage,  and  miscellaneous  work. 

Respectfully  submitted. 

Rudolph  Hering, 

Chief  Engineer. 

Benezette  Williams, 

Samuel  G.  Artingstall, 

Consulting  Engineers. 


Appendix  Ig. 

Chicago,  June  29,  1906. 

Dear  General:  On  May  28  I  replied  at  length  to  your  inquiries  of  May  26  concern¬ 
ing  the  final  report  of  the  Drainage  and  Water  Supply  Commission  and  the  disposition 
of  the  materials  which  had  been  collected.  Under  date  of  May  31  you  now  ask  for — 

“The  sanitary  authority  upon  which  rests  the  requirement  of  the  Illinois  State  law 
that  20,000  cubic  feet  per  minute  must  be  diverted  into  the  Chicago  Drainage  Canal  for 
every  100,000  inhabitants.” 

And  again — 

“How  much  water  is  really  required  to  dilute  the  sewage?” 

The  proper  answer  to  your  questions  involves  a  review  of  the  considerations  which 
determines  the  ratio  of  dilution  in  the  sanitary  district  law  and  the  justification  for  the 
same.  I  have  therefore  delayed  this  answer  in  order  to  consult  original  documents 
and  memoranda.  I  have  not  undertaken  to  refer  exhaustively  to  my  records,  as  I  am 
pressed  for  time,  and  my  memory  is  entirely  clear  upon  the  essential  facts. 

The  essence  of  the  law  is  contained  in  sections  20  and  23  of  “  An  act  to  create  sanitary 
districts  and  to  remove  obstructions  in  the  Des  Plaines  and  Illinois  Rivers”  (passed 
May  29,  1889,  in  force  July  1,1889).  Section  20  states:  “Any  channel  or  outlet  *  *  * 
shall  be  of  sufficient  size  and  capacity  to  produce  a  continuous  flow  of  water  of  at  least 
200  cubic  feet  per  minute  for  each  1,000  of  the  population  of  the  district  drained 
thereby,  and  the  same  shall  be  kept  and  maintained  of  such  size  and  in  such  condition 
that  the  water  thereof  will  be  neither  offensive  or  injurious  to  the  health  of  the  people 
in  this  State.”  Section  23  states:  “  Such  channel  shall  be  made  and  kept  of  such  size 
and  in  such  condition  that  it  will  produce  and  maintain  at  all  times  a  continuous  flow 
of  not  less  than  20,000  cubic  feet  of  water  per  minute  for  each  100,000  of  the  population 
of  such  district.” 

Section  23  states  further:  “Such  channel  shall  be  constructed  of  sufficient  size  and 
capacity  to  produce  and  maintain  at  all  times  a  continuous  flow  of  not  less  than  300,000 
cubic  feet  of  water  per  minute,  *  *  *  and  if  any  portion  of  any  such  channel 
shall  be  cut  through  a  territory  with  a  rocky  stratum  *  *  *  snch  portion  of  said 
channel  shall  have  double  the  flowing  capacity  above  provided  for.” 

You  will  see  that  the  law  insists  on  a  sanitary  condition,  and  that  the  flow  of  water 
shall  be  continuous  (at  all  times),  and  that  the  minimum  dilution  shall  be  (not  less 
than)  20,000  cubic  feet  of  water  per  minute  for  each  100,000  people.  This  indicates 
that  the  general  assembly  did  not  regard  the  ratio  of  dilution  as  a  jiositive  determina¬ 
tion,  and  this  accords  with  the  facts.  You  will  note  further  that  the  channel  was  to  be 
cut  through  the  rock  with  a  minimum  capacity  of  600,000  cubic  feet  per  minute,  and 
that  the  channel  in  the  clay  was  to  be  subject  to  progressive  enlargement  from  a  capac¬ 
ity  of  300,000  cubic  feet  per  minute  with  the  growth  of  population  above  1 ,500,000. 

As  a  matter  of  fact,  the  rocky  stratum  extended  from  Lockport  to  Summit,  and  the 
channel  was  actually  constructed  of  the  larger  capacity,  leaving  only  7.76  miles 
between  Summit  and  the  waters  of  the  Chicago  River  for  future  enlargement.  When 
the  channel  was  opened  January  17,  1900,  the  population  of  the  district  exceeded 
1,500,000  and  was,  in  fact,  1,637,972  by  the  Federal  census  of  1900.  By  act  of  the 
general  assembly  in  1903  the  district  was  enlarged,  and  the  population  by  census, 
within  the  new  boundaries,  was  1,775,596. 

I  had  everything  to  do  in  determining  the  prime  essentials  of  the  sanitary  district 
law  above  quoted.  I  projected  the  work  in  its  substantial  outlines  in  a  report  which 


[ 


[I 

INTERNATIONAL  WATERWAYS  COMMISSION  PROGRESS  REPORT.  91 

I  drafted  for  tlie  oomniittoe  of  the  Citizens’  Association  in  September,  1885.  (Ossion 
^  Giitlirie,  Dr.  Frank  Reilly,  and  Lyman  E.  Cooley  were  a  subcommittee  to  examine 
the  situation  and  report.)  As  chief  assistant  to  the  Drainage  and  Water-Supply  Com- 
;  mission  in  1886-87,  1  had  charge,  among  other  things,  of  the  canal  solution.  "  I  was 
consulting  engineer  to  the  State  board  of  health  in  1887-1889,  and  again  in  1891  while  its 
i  elaborate  chemical  investigation  of  the  stream  between  Lake  Michigan  and  St.  Louis 

•  was  under  way.  I  was  consulting  engineer  to  the  joint  committee  of  the  legislature 
(mayor  of  Chicago,  ex  ofhcio,  chairman)  that  framed  the  sanitary  district  act,  and  as 
such  determined  the  features  of  the  law  referred  to.  1  later  represented  before  the 

'  general  assembly  the  several  organizations  of  ('hicago  which  were  engaged  in  pro¬ 
moting  legislation. 

The  state  of  our  information  in  1887  in  regard  to  dilution  and  the  capacity  of  channel 
required  is  discussed  at  some  length  in  my  testimony  of  April  7,  1887,  before  the  joint 
committee  of  the  general  assembly.  A  few  hundred  copies  of  this  were  printed,  but  I 
'  do  not  know  where  an  extra  copy  is  to  be  had.  I  refer  to  this  especially  because  it  is 
the  only  published  matter  of  that  period  after  the  preliminary  report.  I  will  also 
^  refer  you  to  an  elaborate  paper  which  discusses  the  subject  matter,  read  on  June  10, 
1896,  before  the  National  Conference  of  State  Hoards  of  Health  at  Chicago.  This  was 
published  by  the  secretary  at  Columbus,  Ohio,  and  is  hard  to  get.  There  were,  of 
‘  course,  many  fugitive  and  fragmentary  discussions  not  considered  worthy  of  preser¬ 
vation. 

You  will  note  in  the  preliminary  report  and  in  later  testimony  tliat  the  Drainage 
and  Water-Supply  C'ommission  refers  to  a  dilution  of  24,000  cubic  feet  per  minute  as 
ample  for  a  sanitary  condition,  and  I  believe  that  Mr.  Hering,  the  chief  of  that  com- 
i  mission,  has  stated  tliat  was  his  personal  view  of  the  requirements.  As  a  matter  of 
)  fact,  the  capacity  of  the  channel  was  fixed  at  that  time  at  600,000  feet  as  required  to 
'  remove  the  flood  water  from  some  420  square  miles  of  territory  (after  the  diversion  of 
I  the  Upper  Des  Plaines  River),  and  prevent  the  same  from  backing  into  the  lake. 

I  The  basis  of  population  used  in  considering  land  disposal  and  other  alternative  solu- 
i  tions  proposed  was  2,500,000,  and  this  figure  was  applied  to  the  proposed  channel 
.  capacity,  giving  the  ratio  of  24,000  cubic  feet  per  minute  for  each  100,000  people  as 
above  stated.  At  that  time  only  preliminary  consideration  had  been  given  to  the 
i  question  of  dilution,  as  the  chief  force  of  the  investigation  had  been  applied  to  other 
'  alternative  solutions. 

I  think  it  is  also  in  evidence  before  the  joint  committee  of  the  general  assembly  in 
1887,  by  Dr.  Rauch,  secretary  of  the  State  board  of  health,  that  14,000  cubic  feet 
per  minute  would  be  sufficient.  Dr.  Rauch  had  undertaken  an  investigation  of  the 
subject  preliminary  to  the  elaborate  studies  of  1888-89.  After  the  adjournment  of 
the  legislature  and  the  failure  of  the  Hurd  bill  in  1887,  little  further  attention  was 
given  to  the  matter  until  it  was  taken  up  by  the  special  committee  appointed  to  frame 
a  law  and  report  to  the  next  general  assembly. 

This  committee  had  several  hearings  and  developed  much  diversity  of  opinion. 
Personal  opinions  ranged  from  14,000  feet  per  minute  to  30,000  feet,  and  some  wished 
to  leave  the  matter  entirely  open.  As  no  agreement  could  be  reached,  the  whole 
subject  was  referred  to  the  consulting  engineer  late  in  1888,  and  after  a  painstaking 
!  investigation  he  reported,  and  the  results  were  embodied  in  the  draft  of  the  bill  and 
subsequently  became  law. 

The  data  available  are  referred  to  as  follows; 

*  “Special  investigations  of  the  filth -producing  industries  of  Chicago,  and  an  elabo- 
’  rate  investigation  of  the  Chicago  River  and  branches  in  the  autumn  of  1886,  and  after 

the  flood  of  1887,  also  the  Illinois  and  Michigan  Canal;  a  careful  investigation  of  the 
history  and  condition  of  sewage  in  the  Des  Plaines  and  Illinois  Rivers  for  the  15 
I  years  prior  to  1887,  between  Joliet  and  La  Salle;  the  chemical  investigations  by  the 
i  State  board  of  health  over  the  route  from  Lake  Michigan  to  the  city  of  St.  Louis,  and 
of  tributary  streams,  and  a  special  investigation  of  the  conditions  produced  by  the 
,  distillers  at  Peoria  and  Pekin.” 

The  above  data  were  probably  more  ample  than  had  ever  been  brought  before  to- 
the  consideration  of  a  similar  problem.  In  addition,  there  were  the  following  docu¬ 
ments:  Reports  on  the  condition  of  the  Seine  at  and  below  Paris;  reports  on  the 
sewage-disposal  works  at  Berlin,  then  being  inaugurated:  three  reports  by  parliamen- 
I  tary  commissions  on  river  pollution  in  Great  Britain;  reports  on  })ollution  of  streams 
by  the  State  board  of  health  of  ^lassachusetts;  reports  by  Dr.  Chandler  on  the  pol- 
!  lution  of  the  Passaic  River,  N.  J. 

In  addition,  the  consulting  engineer  had  made  special  notes  on  the  low-water  con¬ 
dition  of  the  Ohio  River  and  of  the  Upper  Mississippi  River  and  on  several  other 
'  streams,  in  comjrarison  with  population. 


92  INTERNATIONAL  WATERWAYS  COMMISSION  PROGRESS  REPORT. 


The  genera]  result  arrived  at  was  that  14,000  cubic  feet  per  minute  would  be  ade¬ 
quate  for  a  normal  city  population  such  as  usually  obtained  in  New  England  and  in 
Europe,  but  that  this  ratio  should  be  increased  about  50  per  cent  on  account  of  the 
special  industries  characteristic  of  Chicago  and  the  quality  of  her  site — ^flat  topography, 
with  impermeable  subsoil.  At  that  time — and  we  still  have  great  industries  based  on 
animal  and  other  organic  products — the  wastes  coming  from  the  stockyards  and  ren¬ 
dering  establishments  alone  were  estimated  as  the  sewage  equivalent  of  a  normal  city 
of  700,000  people.  Every  effort  had  been  made,  and  is  still  being  made,  to  utilize 
these  organic  wastes,  and  great  progress  had  been  made  in  the  previous  20  years, 
but  nevertheless  it  was  thought  wise  to  provide  sufficiently  for  all  conditions  rather 
than  subject  any  industry  to  special  burdens.  These  considerations  raised  the  dilu¬ 
tion  ratio  to  20,000  cubic  feet  per  minute  as  a  minimum,  and  it  was  so  recommended. 

At  that  time  we  had  distilleries  in  Chicago  which  were  serious  offenders,  but  they 
have  since  closed  down.  I  examined  the  distilleries  at  Peoria  in  1891,  when  40,000 
head  of  cattle  were  fed  on  the  slops,  and  I  found  that  the  fish  were  destroyed  for  24 
miles  down  the  river  in  the  low- water  season.  It  was  noted  that  the  conditions  were 
worse  when  the  raw  slops  were  run  directly  into  the  river,  as  the  cattle  were  not  then 
present  to  reduce  the  decomposition  by  several  stages.  In  this  industry  I  understand 
that  these  wastes  are  now  evaporated  and  pressed  into  cake  and  sold  for  stock  food. 

In  the  rendering  business  there  is  a  highly  concentrated  effluent  from  the  tanks, 
which  would  resemble  consomme  if  it  were  filtered  and  deodorized,  and  this  has 
defied  all  chemical  science  for  its  salvation.  Hopes  were  entertained  of  converting 
it  into  commercial  ammonia  by  destructive  distillation,  but  this  did  not  prove  practi¬ 
cable  on  a  commercial  scale.  I  believe  that  sometime  these  valuable  wastes  will  be 
commercially  utilized,  and  when  this  is  done  a  great  burden  will  be  taken  off  the 
Chicago  Drainage  Canal.  It  seemed  to  me  that  if  it  was  not  possible  to  make  an  eco¬ 
nomic  use  of  these  concentrated  effluents,  the  profitable  disposal  of  household  sewage 
with  the  enormous  volumes  of  water  used  in  American  cities  was  absolutely  hopeless. 
At  that  time  the  sentiment  of  sanitarians  was  very  strongly  against  what  we  proposed 
as  a  barbarism.  The  experience  of  nearly  20  years  since  has  fully  borne  out  the 
noneconomic  character  of  sewage-disposal  works,  and  the  Chicago  solution  has  come  to 
be  accepted  as  rational  where  the  conditions  permit. 

I  was  not  satisfied  with  our  data  in  j*egard  to  the  stockyards  district,  and  when 
chief  engineer  of  the  sanitary  district  in  1890  I  undertook  a  special  chemical  investi¬ 
gation,  continued  over  a  period  of  time,  of  every  outfall  entering  the  South  Fork. 
The  work  was  completed,  but  I  ceased  to  be  chief  engineer  before  the  results  were 
fully  worked  out.  At  the  same  time  I  made  a  continued  series  of  chemical  analyses 
of  the  Illinois  &  Michigan  Canal,  which  was  then  being  operated  to  a  capacity  of 
over  50,000  cubic  feet  per  minute.  These  investigations  cost  some  |6,000.  1  became 

satisfied  that  I  had  not  overestimated  the  special  source  of  filth.  It  was  my  intention 
to  carry  the  inquiry  over  the  entire  city  and  do  what  had  never  been  done  before — 
ascertain  the  sewage  of  a  great  municipality  as  a  whole.  If  I  had  had  my  way  in  the 
matter  we  would  have  had  more  positive  data  as  to  the  sewage  equivalent  and  the 
volume  of  Lake  Michigan  water  required.  Our  boards  of  trustees  have  not  since 
encouraged  the  resumption  of  any  such  work,  and  indeed  it  has  been  regarded  as 
needless  by  those  in  authority  after  the  sanitary  district  law  had  been  passed  and  the 
work  actually  entered  upon. 

No  extended  investigations  were  again  undertaken  until  the  biological  and  chemical 
examinations  of  1899  and  1900  were  made  by  the  cooperation  of  the  health  depart¬ 
ment  of  the  city  of  Chicago,  the  Chicago  University,  and  the  University  of  Illinois. 

This  investigation  was  instigated  by  Dr.  Frank  W.  Reilly,  then  and  now  assistant 
health  commissioner  of  Chicago,  after  consultation  with  the  writer.  _  Dr.  Reilly  was 
assistant  secretary  of  the  State  board  of  health  during  the  investigations  of_  1881- 
1885,  and  in  1886  collated  the  results  of  Prof.  J.  H.  Long’s  chemical  examinations  of 
the  contents  of  the  Illinois  &  Michigan  Canal  and  of  the  Illinois  River  and  its  tribu¬ 
taries  as  far  south  as  Peoiia.  These  examinations  were  projected  by  Dr.  J.  H.  Rauch, 
secretary  of  the  State  board,  and  were  directly  supervised  by  Dr.  Reilly.  His 
study  and  collation  of  Prof.  Long’s  analyses  demonstrated  that  all  trace  of  Chi¬ 
cago  sewage  pollution  disappeared  in  a  flow  of  48  miles  from  its  source — -that  is,  between 
Bridgeport  at  the  entrance  of  the  Illinois  &  Michigan  Canal  and  the  town  of  Chan- 
nahon  on  the  Des  Plaines  River,  after  this  stream  had  received  the  discharge  from 
the  canal.  This  demonstration  completely  upset  the  time-honored  dictum  of  previous 
water  analyses  “that  no  river  on  earth  is  long  enough  to  purify  itself  after  it  has  become 
contaminated  with  organic  wastes.”  Six  years  later,  in  1892,  Pottenkofer  fully 
corroborated  Dr.  Reilly’s  demonstration. 

Dr.  Reilly  and  myself  were  associated  in  all  the  early  promotion  of  the  sanitaiy 
project,  and  he  is  the  only  person  that  I  know  upon  whom  you  can  call  for  a  history 
of  the  subject  matter  of  this  letter. 


Ij  INTERNATIONAL  WATERWAYS  COMMISSION  PRO(}RESS  REFORT.v  93 

;  The  biological  examinations  were  entirely  confirmatory  of  the  results  of  the  investi- 
gations  of  1888-89,  but  have  the  merit  of  less  confusion  in  interpretation.  The  State 
1]  board  of  health  has  since  recompiled  and  extended  the  results  of  its  stream  examina- 
J  tions,  and  published  a  report  in  1903.  The  University  of  Illinois  has  been  making 
for  several  years  past  a  biological  inve.stigation  of  the  waters  of  the  Illinois  River, 

['  but  with  no  special  reference  to  the  matters  under  consideration.  I  do  not  refer  to 
■>  data  of  an  ex  parte  character  gathered  in  the  Chicago-St.  Louis  suit  recently  decided 
I  by  the  IJnitecf  States  Supreme  Court. 

None  of  this  later  material  nor  the  added  experience  and  reflection  of  nearly  20 
^  years  has  changed  my  mind  in  regard  to  the  ratio  of  dilution  as  given  in  1888  and  incor¬ 
porated  in  the  sanitary  district  law.  I  do  not  think  I  could  make  a  better  determina¬ 
tion  at  this  time.  I  i’eel  bound  to  say,  however,  that  we  have  not  yet  had  the  final 
demonstration  of  experience.  We  shall  not  positively  know  until  the  intercepting 
:  sewer  system  is  completed  and  in  operation,  the  South  Fork  in  active  circulation, 

*  and  also  the  North  Rranch,  so  that  the  canal  receives  the  entire  output  of  the  city 
north  of  Eighty-seventh  Street  in  a  coni])aratively  fresh  condition.  I  have  been  appre¬ 
hensive  that  these  contributions  would  be  made  before  the  Chicago  River  is  sufliciently 

^  improved  to  furnish  the  necessary  volume  of  water  to  promptly  dilute  the  same.  The 
i  analyses  show  a  higher  ratio  per  capita  for  chlorine  and  nitrogen,  but  this  was  antici- 

*  pated.  They  also  show  a  large  proportion  down  the  old  canal,  which,  owing  to  the  sit- 
’  nation  of  its' inlet,  receives  largely  the  output  of  the  South  Fork,  but  this  was  also 
'  anticipated.  The  evidence  as  to  chlorine  is  to  be  taken  with  caution  on  account  of  the 
\  large  use  of  salt  in  many  of  our  industries,  but  the  indications  are  that  Chicago  sewage 

may  be  even  richer  than  I  had  presumed  in  eomparison  with  the  sewage  of  normal 
y  cities.  I  have  no  forebodings,  however,  other  than  as  to  the  policy  which  may  be  })ur- 
sued  by  the  authorities  of  the  sanitary  district.  Based  on  the  advice  of  the  consulting 
engineer  the  law  is  abundantly  cautious  in  stating  the  ratio  of  dilution  and  the  capacity 
of  channel  as  minimums  and  in  insisting  on  a  continuous  flow,  but  unhappily  there 
J  has  been  a  disposition  in  many  quarters  to  interpret  these  minimum  lequirements  as 
maximums. 

I  You  will  find  in  the  testimony  of  1887  and  the  paper  before  the  National  Conference 
f  of  State  Boards  of  Health  in  1890,  persistent  reference  to  the  necessity  of  maintaining 
j  the  flow  in  the  wintei  time.  The  investigations  show  clearly  that  the  sewage  travels 
I  farther  down  the  stream  in  (he  winter  season  and  is  more  dangerous  to  fish  life  when  the 
oxygen  can  not  be  renewed  owing  to  an  ice  cover.  The  necessity  for  dilution  is  then 
!  paiamount.  In  the  original  studies  of  an  economic  channel,  made  under  my  direc¬ 
tion,  first  by  William  A.  Lydon  in  1886-87,  and  later  by  Thomas  T.  Johnston  in  1890-91 
I  the  carrying  capacity  of  a  channel  covered  by  ice  was  fully  considered.  On  the 
>  present  channel  the  capacity  will  be  reduced  by  nearly  40  per  cent,  or  to  something 
over  60  per  cent  of  the  capacity  of  an  open  channel. 

In  making  the  studies  for  the  main  channel  we  adopted  the  most  conservative 
coefficients.  The  channel  depth  was  made  nominally  22  feet,  with  an  allowance  of 
over  2  feet  for  fall  between  the  lake  and  the  head  of  the  channel  at  Robey  Street,  but 
it  was  understood  that  any  proper  improvement  of  the  Chicago  River  and  by  other 
inlets  would  give  a  depth  of  24  feet  or  more.  The  channel  itself  was  made  of  better 
.  character  than  originally  anticipated,  owing  to  the  use  of  the  channeling  machine. 
The  effect  has  been  to  give  a  channel  of  nearly  40  per  cent  greater  capacity  than  the 
minimum  stated  in  the  law.  It  was  my  hope  and  intention  to  produce  a  channel 
I  30  feet  deep,  with  a  capacity  of  1,000,000  feet,  but  I  was  not  able  to  reach  farther 
than  1  have  stated. 

Under  the  original  theory  the  channel  is  not  sufficient:  even  now  to  carry  600,000  feet 
of  water  per  minute  under  an  ice  cover.  It  has  been  ingeniously  answered  that  this 
objection  could  be  removed  by  the  use  of  ice  boats,  but  1  have  a  mental  resistance  to 
t’  all  solutions  of  sanitary  problems  that  are  not  automatic  in  action,  for  sooner  or  later 
^  they  go  awry,  to  the  prejudice  of  the  public  health. 

It  is  fair  to  say,  however,  that  thus  far  little  ice  has  formed  upon  the  main  channel, 
and  that  the  flow  has  been  little  interfered  with  from  this  cause.  This  has  been  attrib- 
'  uted  to  the  large  volumes  of  warm  water  from  households  and  from  manufacturing 
plants,  and  it  is  supposed  also  that  active  sewage  decomposition  may  have  some¬ 
thing  to  do  with  it,  and,  further,  that  a  surface  film  of  oleaginous  matter  may  afford 
some  protection.  Perhaps  these  explanations  are  after  the  facts  and  therefore  spec- 
i  Illative.  Whatever  may  be  the  cause,  the  effects  should  be  relatively  less  when  the 
channel  shall  be  carrying  the  full  volume.  And,  again,  the  grand  law  of  average  will 
give  us  more  severe  winters  than  we  have  been  having  since  the  channel  was  opened. 

The  estimates  of  the  carrying  capacity  of  the  main  channel  are  based  as  follows 
(report  of  expert  commission ;  see  proceedings  of  board  of  trustees  of  sanitary  district, 

I  June  19,  1901,  p.  7248): 


^)4  INTERNATIONAL  WATERWAYS  COMMISSION  PROGRESS  REPORT. 


“Within  the  past  two  weeks  the  results  of  special  observations  made  since  this  com¬ 
mission  was  organized,  and  other  relevant  data,  has  enabled  an  approximate  determi¬ 
nation  of  coefficients  by  which  to  determine  the  capacity  of  the  main  chaimel  under 
the  conditions  specified.  To  determine  these  matters  finally,  however,  requires  a 
special  set  of  observations  under  better  weather  conditions  and  with  the  canal  operated 
for  this  purpose.” 

The  expert  commission  of  1901  estimated  the  capacity  of  the  channel  on  a  depth  of 
24.4  feet  at  Willow  Springs,  at  836,280  cubic  feet  .per  minute,  in  conjunction  with  a 
radical  improvement  of  the  Chicago  River  such  as  would  furnish  the  entire  supply  of 
water  without  detriment  to  navigation.  The  same  commission  estimated  the  capacity 
on  a  depth  of  24.2  feet  at  Willow  Springs,  at  827,040  cubic  feet  per  minute,  in  conjunc¬ 
tion  with  a  moderate  improvement  of  the  Chicago  River  north  of  Sixteenth  Street  and 
an  inlet  direct  to  the  lake  adjacent  to  Sixteenth  Street  on  the  south.  In  both  cases  the 
lake  was  assumed  at  Chicago  datum,  or  low  water  of  1847.  Both  of  these  treatments 
were  in  harmony  with  the  theory  of  the  law  and  the  original  project. 

The  sanitary  district  has  adopted,  at  least  for  the  present,  a  channel  through  the  Chi¬ 
cago  River  200  feet  wide,  which  the  expert  commission  estimated  would  carry  390,000 
feet  of  water  per  minute  without  detriment  to  navigation.  1  understand  that  it  is 
expected  to  feed  to  the  channel  600,000  feet  through  the  Chicago  River  and  the  Thirty- 
ninth  Street  conduit,  and  that  one-fifth  of  this  is  to  come  by  way  of  the  conduit  and  the 
South  Fork.  I  understand  further  that  it  is  proposed  to  construct  a  channel  from  the 
Calumet  region  through  the  Sag,  with  a  capacity  of  some  240,000  feet  of  water  per  min¬ 
ute.  The  total  is  840,000  per  minute,  or  the  i4,000  feet  per  second  which  has  been 
mentioned  in  the  hearings  at  ^^'ashington  and  before  your  commision. 

You  will  note  in  the  testimony  of  1887  that  the  considerations  which  originally  fixed 
the  channel  at  a  capacity  of  600,000  cubic  feet  per  minute  was  the  flood  volume  from  an 
area  of  420  square  miles.  Assuming  the  channel  to  have  a  capacity  of  840,000  cubic 
feet  per  minute,  the  flood  equivalent  would  represent  a  territory  of  not  over  700  square 
miles.  To  add  more  territory  is  sure  to  result  at  some  time  in  the  backing  of  the  waters 
into  the  lake.  Sewage  pollution  is  to  be  regarded  as  most  dangerous  when  the  sewage 
is  carried  out  in  a  fresh  condition  during  floods  and  when  the  city  is  virtually  taking  a 
bath,  and  it  was  such  eruptions  of  flood  waters  from  the  populated  area  which  the  drain¬ 
age  and  water-supply  commission  sought  particularly  to  avoid. 

I  am  therefore  strenuously  opposed  to  all  propositions  which  propose  to  add  unlim¬ 
ited  territory  to  the  present  channel  and  which  propose  in  any  manner  to  sacrifice  part 
of  its  capacity  in  the  carrying  of  floods  from  upland  and  rural  territory.  All  the  great 
filth-producing  industries  and  the  great  population  is  now  tributary,  and  will  so  remain, 
to  the  Chicago  River,  its  branches,  and  the  main  channel;  and  I  do  not  think  that  the 
provision  which  has  been  made  for  this  territory  is  more  ample  than  should  have  been 
provided  for  a  reasonable  future  growth.  The  capacity  on  the  present  scale  of  mini¬ 
mum  dilution,  presuming  it  to  be  sufficient,  is  the  equivalent  of  a  population  of 
4,200,000.  This  may  not  actually  be  realized,  but  I  feel  sure  that  the  progressive  sav¬ 
ing  of  wastes  will  eventually  reduce  the  per  capita  output  of  sewage  to  more  nearly  the 
normal  for  other  cities.  We  know  that  such  utilization  has  already  taken  place  in  con¬ 
nection  with  the  distilleries.  We  also  have  the  police  power  and  can  compel  the  care 
of  specific  sources  of  nuisance  when  necessity  requires;  but  as  already  remarked,  such 
a  policy  in  connection  with  our  great  industries  has  not  been  considered  wise. 

I  anticipate,  therefore,  that  as  conditions  develop  in  the  future,  the  channel  may 
prove  sufficient  for  five  or  six  millions  of  people,  provided  the  original  plans  can  be 
carried  out  in  their  integrity.  That  means,  however,  that  the  capacity  of  the  main 
channel  shall  be  reserved  substantially  (and  it  has  been  planned  and  constructed  on 
that  idea)  for  the  territory  of  the  original  district,  and  that  only  such  provision  shall  be 
made  for  outlying  territory  as  the  actual  necessities  of  its  people  require.  If  we  study 
the  relative  growth  of  population  and  the  character  of  the  industrial  development  in 
such  outlying  territories,  we  shall  be  persuaded  that  such  a  policy  will  do  no  injustice 
and  will  conserve  the  sanitary  purpose  in  the  highest  degree. 

What  is  to  be  the  future  population  of  Chicago  no  man  can  foresee.  I  think  we  may 
rest  for  the  present  on  an  assumption  of  five  to  six  million  people.  In  laying  out  the 
main  channel  its  tangents  were  made  parallel  to  and  at  a  fixed  distance  from  the  Illinois 
and  Michigan  Canal  where  the  same  was  possible.  The  idea  under  this  location  was 
that  the  old  canal  would  maintain  the  reservation  for  future  use  and  that  the  time 
might  come  when  another  canal  alongside  would  be  desirable.  My  thought  in  this 
matter  was  not  so  much  an  ultimate  thought  on  the  sanitary  question  as  it  was  that  we 
might  wish  to  carry  more  water  to  the  Illinois  River  in  the  interest  of  deeper  navigation. 
If  any  such  proposition  is  considered  beyond  the  provision  which  has  already  been 
inade,  the  whole  continent  should  join,  and  we  may  dismiss  it  from  present  considera¬ 
tion.  I  do  believe,  however,  that  the  time  will  come  when  public  opinion  on  this  con¬ 
tinent  will  be  sufficiently  broad  to  make  the  best  use  possible  of  the  waters  of  the  Great 


t 


INTERNATIONAL  WATERWAYS  COMMISSION  PROGRESS  REPORT.  95 

k.  • 

[:  Lakes,  in  the  interest  of  the  deepest  possible  navigation  from  the  Gulf  of  St.  Lawrence 
ll'  to  the  Gulf  of  Mexico,  and  I  do  believe  that  the  project  which  Chicago  has  so  happily 
f  inaugurated  as  the  incident  of  a  sanitary  necessity  will  come  to  be  looked  upon  as  a 
p  monumental  foresight. 

I  think  J  have  covered  the  subject  matters  of  your  inquiry.  If  you  wish  the  docu- 
ments  which  I  have  especially  referred  to,  I  will  loan  them  to  you,  as  I  do  not  know 
where  duplicates  are  to  be  had. 

•  Yours,  very  respectfully,  Lyman  E.  Cooley. 

Gen.  O.  H.  Ernst, 

Chairman  of  American  Section, 

'  International  Waterways  Commission,  Washmgton,  J).  C. 


Appendix  Tg. 

Summary  of  net  receipts  and  expenditures,  sanitary  district  of  Chicago,  from  organizat  ion  to 

Dec.  31,  1905. 

RECEIPTS. 


<  Taxes  collected  for  general  purposes . 

Taxes  collected  for  water-power  development 


$30,  712,  708.  65 
2,  014,  730.  57 


'  Bond  account  (bonds  outstanding) : 

First  issue . 

I  Second  issue . 

Fourth  issue . 

f  Fifth  issue . 

Sixth  issue . . 

Seventh  issue . 

Eolith  issue . 

Ninth  issue . . 

Tenth  issue . . 

Eleventh  issue . . 

j  Twelfth  issue . . 

Thirteenth  issue . 

Fourteenth  issue . 

,  Fifteenth  issue . . 

Sixteenth  issue . 


700, 000. 00 
1,  200,  000.  00 
1,  350,  000.  00 
1,  800,  000.  00 
400,  000.  00 
440,  000.  00 
200,  000.  00 
190, 000.  00 
700, 000.  00 
750,  000.  00 
1,  875,  000.  00 
1,  600, 000.  00 
1,  275,  000.  00 
1,  350, 000.  00 
1,  350,  000.  00 
2, 000, 000.  00 


Interest  on  bank  balances . 

Tax  levy,  1896  (warrants  outstanding) . 

Dock  and  land  improvement  and  rental  account  (rent  of  land) 

American  Crushed  Stone  Co . 

Western  Stone  Co . 


$32,  727,  439.  22 


17, 180,  000.  00 
362,  785.  73 
5,  212.  91 
40, 123.  78 
1,  000.  00 
3,  278.  00 


Total  receipts 


50,  319,  839.  64 


I  EXPENDITURES. 


Right  of  Tvay . 

■  River  diversion  construction .  $1, 000, 186.  38 

Bridge  construction,  river  diversion .  142,  486.  20 

Main-channel  construction .  18,547,408.95 

i  Bridge  construction,  main  channel .  1,  978, 536.  38 

Controlling  works,  Lockport .  331,  253.  65 

»  Bridge  construction,  controlling  works .  7,  873.  35 

,  Joliet  project .  1, 309,  063.  46 

Bridge  construction,  JoBet  project .  271,  351. 16 

Chicago  River,  dredging,  docking,  etc .  2,  027,  221.  78 

Bridge  construction,  Chicago  River .  2, 498,  383.  03 

Illinois  and  Michigan  Canal  improvement  at  Bridge¬ 
port...^ .  77,016.08 

Thirty-ninth  Street  pumping  station .  211,  604.  85 

,  Improvement  of  Kampsville  and  La  Grange  Dams. .  16,  920.  27 

^  Raising  roadway  of  Brandon’s  bridge .  5,  882.  68 


6,  983,  944. 14 


I 


28, 425, 188.  22 


96  INTERNATIONAL  WATERWAYS  COMMISSION  PROGRESS  REPORT. 


Water-power  development . 

Bridge  construction,  water-power  development 

Capitalization  and  maintenance  of  bridges . . 

Maintenance  of  highway  bridges . 

Maintenance  account . 

Interest  on  bonds . 

Interest  on  tax  warrants . 

Taxes  on  land: 

Cook  County . 

Bnpage  County . 

Will  County . 


$1,346,085.  92 
112,  362.  44 


403,  354.  60 
12,613.  89 
164,  775.  95 


6,  821,  647.  58 
468, 453.  69 


3, 248. 19 
1,  209.  07 
27,  310.  28 


$1,458,448.36 

580,  744.  44 
7,  290, 101.  27 

31,  767.  54 


Engineering  department . 

Engineering  department,  water-power  development. . 

Clerical  department . 

Law  department . 

Treasury  department . 

Police  department . 

General  account . 


2, 064,  007.  21 
97,  778.  20 
173,  361.  87 
1,  031, 154. 12 
41,  832.  39 
400, 160.  69 
867,  944. 19 


City  of  Chicago . 

Land  damages . 

Marine  damages . 

Personal-injuries  account . 

Bridgeport  pumping  works . . . 

Special  commission,  Chicago  Drainage  Canal 

Telephone  line . . . 

Telephone  line  repair  account . 

W^’eir,  McKechnev  &  Co . 

E.  D.  Smith  &  Co . 


4,  685,  238.  67 
14, 079.  20 
76, 331.  84 
9,  647.  32 
4, 087.  50 
90,  388.  80 
33, 075.  97 
12,  292. 13 
104.  00 
22, 118. 14 
2, 400.  00 


Total  expenditures . ; . 

Emergency  funds  in  hands  of  department  officials. . .  $10, 400.  00 

Due  from  F.  M.  Blount,  treasurer  (deposit  in  National 

Bank  of  Illinois) .  22,  043.  48 

Due  from  John  J.  Hanberg,  county  collector .  45,  727.  38 

Due  from  collector,  town  of  Niles .  1,  660.  32 

Balance  in  hands  of  C.  L.  Hutchinson,  treasurer,  De¬ 
cember  31,  1905 .  ^20,  050.  92 


49,  719,  957.  54 


599,  882. 10 


50,  319,  839.  64 


Appendix  I4. 

1  Permit  of  July  3,  1896,] 

4554.]  IMPROVEMENT  OF  CHICAGO  RIVER. 

July  3,  1896. 

Sir:  I  have  the  honor  to  acknowledge  the  receipt  of  your  letter  of  16th  ultimo, 
requesting  permission  to  make  certain  changes  in  the  capacity  of  the  channel  of  the 
Chicago  Piver  for  drainage  purposes  at  points  indicated  on  the  map  accompanying 
the  application,  and  in  reply  beg  to  say  that  upon  investigation  it  is  found  that  the 
permission  requested  can  be  granted  upon  the  following  conditions; 

1.  That  while  the  general  plan  is  approved,  the  sanitary  district  of  Chicago  must 
furnish  plans  in  triplicate  on  an  enlarged  scale  showing  each  proposed  new  bridge, 
each  by-pass,  and  each  new  dock  or  wharf  proposed  to  be  built,  in  order  that  the 
Secretary  of  War  may  act  intelligently  in  each  case. 

2.  That  this  authority  shall  not  be  interpreted  as  approval  of  the  plans  of  the  sani¬ 
tary  district  of  Chicago  to  introduce  a  current  into  Chicago  River.  This  latter 
proposition  must  hereafter  be  submitted  for  consideraton. 


INTERNATIONAL  WATERWAYS  COMMISSION  PROGRESS  REPORT.  97 


3.  That  it  will  not  cover  obstructions  to  naviojatioii  by  reason  of  this  work  while 
in  progress  or  when  com])leted. 

4.  That  the  United  States  shall  not  be  put  to  expense  by  reason  of  this  work. 

5.  That  this  authority  will  exi)ire  by  limitation  in  twm  years  from  date  unless 
extended. 

Very  respectfully,  Joseph  B.  Doe, 

Acting  Secretary  of  Bar. 

B.  A.  Eckhart,  Esq., 

President  the  Sanitary  District  of  Chicago,  Rialto  Building,  Chicago,  III. 

[Permit  of  May  8,  1899.] 

Whereas  by  section  10  of  an  act  of  Congress  approved  March  3,  1899,  entitled  “An 
act  making  ap])ropriations  for  the  construction,  repair,  and  preservation  of  certain 
public  works  on  rivers  and  harbors,  and  for  other  purposes,  ”  it  is  provided  that  it 
shall  not  be  lawful  to  alter  or  modify  the  course,  location,  condition,  or  capacity  of 
the  channel  of  any  navigable  water  of  the  United  States  unless  the  wmrk  has  been 
recommended  by  the  Chief  of  Engineers  and  authorized  by  the  Secretary  of  War 
prior  to  beginning  the  same; 

And  whereas  the  sanitary  district  of  Chicago,  a  municipal  corporation  organized 
under  the  laws  of  the  State  of  Illinois,  has  constructed  an  artificial  channel  from 
Robey  Street,  Chicago,  to  Lockport,  and  has  heretofore  been  granted  permission  by 
the  Secretary  of  War  to  make  certain  improvements  in  the  Chicago  River  for  the 
purpose  of  correcting  and  regulating  the  cross  section  of  the  river  so  as  to  secure  a 
flowage  capacity  of  300,000  cubic  feet  per  minute  with  a  velocity  of  1 J  miles  an  hour, 
it  being  intended  to  connect  the  said  artificial  channel  with  the  west  fork  of  the  South 
Branch  of  Chicago  River  at  Robey  Street,  in  the  said  city  of  Chicago; 

And  wdiereas  the  said  sanitary  district  of  Chicago  has  now  applied  to  the  Secretary 
of  War  for  permission  to  divert  the  waters  of  the  said  Chicago  River  and  cause  them 
to  flow  into  the  said  artificial  channel  at  Robey  Street,  as  aforesaid; 

And  whereas  the  said  sanitary  district  of  Chicago  represents  that  such  movable 
dams  and  sluice  gates  as  are  necessary  to  at  all  times  secure  absolute  and  complete 
control  of  the  volume  and  velocity  of  flow  through  the  Chicago  River  have  been 
constructed; 

Now,  therefore,  the  Chief  of  Engineers  having  consented  thereto,  this  is  to  certify 
that  the  Secretary  of  War  hereby  gives  permission  to  the  said  sanitary  district  of 
Chicago  to  open  the  channel  constructed  and  cause  the  w^aters  of  Chicago  River  to 
flow  into  the  same,  subject  to  the  following  conditions: 

1.  That  it  be  distinctly  understood  that  it  is  the  intention  of  the  Secretary  of  War 
to  submit  the  questions  connected  with  the  work  of  the  sanitary  district  of  Chicago 
to  Congress  for  consideration  and  final  action,  and  that  this  permit  shall  be  subject 
to  such  action  as  may  be  taken  by  Congress. 

2.  That  if,  at  any  time,  it  become  apparent  that  the  current  created  by  such  drain¬ 

age  works  in  the  South  and  Main  Branches  of  Chicago  River  be  unreasonably  obstruc¬ 
tive  to  navigation  or  injurious  to  property,  the  Secretary  of  War  reserves  the  right  to 
close  said  discharge  through  said  channel  or  to  modify  it  to  such  extent  as  may  be 
demanded  by  navigation  and  property  interests  along  said  Chicago  River  and  its 
South  Branch.  * 

3.  That  the  sanitary  district  of  Chicago  must  assume  all  responsiblity  for  damages 
to  property  and  navigation  interests  by  reason  of  the  introduction  of  a  current  in 
Chicago  River. 

Witness  my  hand  this  8th  day  of  May,  1899. 

[seal.]  R.  a.  Alger, 

Secretary  of  B  ar. 

John  M.  Wilson, 

Brigadier  General,  Chief  of  Engineers,  U.  S.  Army, 

[Permit  of  April  9,  1901.] 

Whereas,  under  date  of  May  8,  1899.  the  Secretary  of  War  granted  permission  unto 
the  sanitary  district  of  Chicago  to  open  the  artificial  channel  from  Robey  Street,  Chicago 
to  Lockport,  and  cause  the  waters  of  Chicago  River  to  flow  into  the  same,  upon  the 
following  conditions,  inter  alia: 

“2.  That  if,  at  any  time,  it  become  apparent  that  the  current  created  by  such  drain- 
^e  works  in  the  South  and  Main  branches  of  Chicago  River  be  unreasonably  obstruct¬ 
ive  to  navigation  or  injurious  to  property,  the  Secretary  of  War  reserves  the  right  to 
close  said  discharge  through  said  channel  or  to  modify  it  to  such  extent  as  may  be 


S.  Doc.  959—62-3 - 7 


98  INTERNATIONAL  WATERWAYS  COMMISSION  PROGRESS  REPORT. 


I 


demanded  by  naidgation  and  property  interests  along  said  Chicago  River  and  its  South 
Branch;” 

And  whereas  it  is  alleged  by  various  commercial  and  navigation  interests  that  the 
present  discharge  from  the  river  into  the  drainage  canal  sometimes  exceeds  300,000 
cubic  feet  per  minute,  causing  a  velocity  of  nearly  3  miles  per  hour,  which  greatly 
endangers  navigation  in  the  present  condition  of  the  river; 

Now,  therefore,  this  is  to  certify  that  the  Secretary  of  War,  upon  the  recommenda¬ 
tion  of  the  Chief  of  Engineers,  hereby  directs  said  sanitary  district  to  regulate  the 
discharge  from  the  river  into  the  drainage  canal  so  that  the  maximum  flow  through  the 
Chicago  River  and  its  South  Branch  shall  not  exceed  200,000  cubic  feet  per  minute. 

Witness  mv  hand  this  9th  day  of  April,  1901. 

[seal.]  ^  Elihu  Root, 

Secretary  of  War. 


[Permit  of  July  23,  1901.] 


The  Sanitary  District  op  Chicago, 

Security  Building, 
Chicago,  July  15,  1901. 

Sir:  I  have  the  honor  to  request,  on  behalf  of  the  sanitary  district  of  Chicago,  that 
your  order  of  April  9,  1901,  restricting  the  flow  of  water  through  the  Chicago  River  to 
200,000  cubic  feet  of  water  per  minute,  may  be  so  amended  as  to  permit  the  controlling 
works  at  Lockport,  the  outlet  of  the  main  drainage  channel,  to  be  so  regulated  as  to 
permit  at  that  point  a  flow  of  300,000  cubic  feet  of  water  per  minute  between  the  hours 
of  4  p.  m.  and  12  o’clock  midnight. 

The  board  of  trustees  of  the  sanitary  district  have  rigidly  observed  the  restrictions  of 
your  order  of  April  9,  1901,  but  the  result  has  been  that  the  water  in  the  main  drainage 
channel  has  become  greatly  polluted  and  very  offensive  both  to  sight  and  smell  and  is 
working  such  hardship  upon  the  valley  communities  as  to  evoke  frequent  protests  from 
various  cities  and  municipalities  along  the  Des  Plaines  and  Illinois  valleys. 

By  such  a  modification  of  your  restricting  order  as  is  herein  petitioned,  it  would  be 
possible  for  the  sanitary  district  to  secure  much  better  drainage  of  the  city  of  Chicago 
and  the  purification  of  the  waters  of  the  Chicago  River  without  any  hardship  or  incon¬ 
venience  whatever  to  the  interests  of  navigation,  as  the  opening  of  the  controlling 
works  to  a  flow  of  300,000  cubic  feet  of  water  per  minute  would  produce  no  appreciable 
effect  upon  the  current  of  the  Chicago  River  until  three  hours  thereafter  and  would 
not  produce  the  full  effect  until  about  eighth  ours  after  the  opening  of  the  gates.  There¬ 
fore,  by  again  diminishing  the  flow  at  rnidnight  to  the  requirements  of  your  order, 
or  to  200,000  cubic  feet  of  water  per  minute,  the  normal  condition  in  the  Chicago 
River  would  be  restored  before  6  a.  m.  on  the  following  day,  and  thus  no  hardship  or 
inconvenience  occasioned  to  the  navigation  interests  of  the  Chicago  River. 

I  have  the  honor  to  be,  very  respectfully,  yours, 

Alex.  J.  Jones,  President. 

To  the  Hon.  Elihu  Root, 

Secretary  of  War,  Washington,  D.  C. 

[Second  indorsement.] 

Office  Chief  of  Engineers,  U.  S.  Army, 

July  22,  1901. 

Respectfully  returned  to  the  Secretary  of  War. 

By  an  instrument  dated  April  9,  190i,  the  Secretary  of  War  directed  the  sanitary 
district  of  Chicago  to  regulate  the  discharge  from  the  Chicago  River  into  the  drainage 
canal  so  that  the  maximum  flow  through  the  Chicago  River  and  its  South  Branch  shall 
not  exceed  200,000  feet  per  minute. 

The  sanitary  district  now  asks  that  this  order  be  so  amended  as  to  permit  an  increase 
of  the  flow  into  the  canal  to  300,000  cubic  feet  per  minute  between  4  p.  m.  and  12  mid¬ 
night,  daily. 

It  is  the  opinion  of  Maj.  Willard,  expressed  in  the  accompanying  letter  of  the  16th 
instant,  that  the  request  should  be  granted,  subject  to  revocation  by  the  Secretary  of 
War  in  case  the  increase  be  found  dangerous  to  navigation. 

I  concur  in  this  opinion  and  recommend  that  the  order  of  April  9,  1901,  be  modified 
accordingly. 

G.  L.  Gillespie, 

Brigadier  General,  Chief  of  Engineers,  U.  S.  Army. 


[Third  indorsement.] 

War  Department,  July  23,  1901. 
Approved  as  recommended  by  the  Chief  of  Engineers. 

E.  Root,  Secretary  of  War. 


INTERNATIONAL  WATERWAYS  COMMISSION  PROGRESS  REPORT.  99 


[Permit  of  December  5,  1901.] 

Whereas,  under  date  of  May  8,  1899,  the  Secretary  of  War  granted  permission  unto 
the  sanitary  district  of  Chicago  to  open  the  artificial  channel  from  llobey  Street,  Chi¬ 
cago,  to  Lockport,  and  cause  the  waters  of  Chicago  River  to  flow  into  the  same,  upon 
the  following  condition,  inter  alia: 

“2.  That  if  at  any  time  it  becomes  apparent  that  the  current  created  by  such  drain¬ 
age  work  in  the  South  and  Main  branches  of  Chicago  River  be  unreasonably  obstruc¬ 
tive  to  navigation  or  injurious  to  property,  the  Secretary  of  War  reserves  the  light  to 
close  said  discharge  through  said  channel  or  to  modify  it  to  such  extent  as  may  be 
demanded  by  navigation  and  property  interests  along  said  Chicago  River  and  its  South 
Branch.” 

And  whereas  the  Secretary  of  War  subsequently  directed  said  sanitary  district  of 
Chicago  to  regulate  the  discharge  of  water  into  the  Chicago  Drainage  Canal  so  that  the 
maximum  flow  through  the  Chicago  River  shall  not  exceed  200,000  cubic  feet  per 
minute  from  midnight  to  4  p.  m.,  nor  300,000  cubic  feet  per  minute  from  4  p.  m.  to 
midnight. 

And  whereas  said  sanitary  district  of  Chicago  has  applied  to  the  Secretary  of  War 
for  permission  to  increase  the  flow  between  midnight  and  4  p.  m.  daily  to  250,000  cubic 
feet  per  minute,  and  the  Chief  of  Engineers  has  recommended  that  the  increase  applied 
for  be  granted,  but  that  the  rate  of  flow  from  4  p.  m.  to  midnight  be  reduced  to  250,000 
for  permission  to  increase  the  flow  between  midnight  and  4  p.m.  daily  to  250,000  cubic 
feet  per  minute,  and  the  Chief  of  Engineers  has  recommended  that  the  increase  applied 
for  be  granted,  but  that  the  rate  of  flow  from  4  p.  m.  to  midnight  be  reduced  to  250,000 
cubic  feet  per  minute,  so  that  the  flow  through  the  Chicago  River  shall  not  exceed 
250,000  cubic  feet  per  minute  throughout  the  twenty-four  hours  of  the  day: 

Now,  therefore,  this  is  to  certify  that,  in  accordance  with  the  recommendation  of  the 
Chief  of  Engineers,  the  Secretary  of  War  hereby  gives  unto  said  sanitary  district  of 
Chicago  permission  to  regulate  said  discharge  so  that  the  maximum  flow  through  the 
Chicago  River  shall  not  exceed  250,000  cubic  feet  per  minute  throughout  the  twenty- 
four  hours  of  the  day,  upon  the  following  conditions: 

1.  That  this  permission  shall  be  in  lieu  of  the  present  authorized  rates  of  flow  as 
stated  above. 

2.  That  the  permission  herein  given  shall  be  subject  to  such  modification  as  in  the 
opinion  of  the  Secretary  of  War  the  public  interests  may  from  time  to  time  require. 

3.  That  said  sanitary  district  of  Chicago  shall  be  responsible  for  all  damages  inflicted 
upon  navigation  interests  by  reason  of  the  increase  in  flow  herein  authorized. 

Witness  my  hand  this  5th  day  of  December,  1901. 

Wm.  Cary  Sanger, 

Assistant  Secretary  of  War. 

[Permit  of  January  17,  1903.] 

Whereas,  under  date  of  December  5, 1901,  by  an  instrument  supplementary  to  the 
original  permission  granted  by  the  Secretary  of  War  May  8, 1899,  to  the  sanitary  district 
of  Chicago  to  open  the  artificial  channel  from  Robey  Street,  Chicago,  to  Lockport,  and 
cause  the  waters  of  Chicago  River  to  flow  into  the  same,  the  Secretary  of  War,  pursuant 
to  authority  reserved  in  said  jiermission  of  May  8,  1899,  gave  permission  to  the  sanitary 
district  of  Chicago  to  regulate  said  discharge  so  that  the  maximum  flow  through  the 
Chicago  River  shall  not  exceed  250,000  cubic  feet  per  minute  throughout  the  24  hours 
of  the  day,  upon  the  following  condition,  inter  alia: 

“That  the  permission  herein  given  shall  be  subject  to  such  modification  as  in  the 
opinion  of  the  Secretary  of  War  the  public  interests  may  from  time  to  time  require.” 

And  whereas  the  said  sanitary  district  of  Chicago, has  applied  for  permission  to 
increase  the  flow  through  the  Chicago  River  from  250,000  cubic  feet  per  minute  to 
350,000  cubic  feet  per  minute  during  the  closed  season  of  navigation,  in  order  to  carry 
off  the  accumulations  of  sewage  deposit  which  line  the  shores  along  said  city: 

Now,  therefore,  this  is  to  certify  that,  in  accordance  with  the  recommendation  of 
the  Chief  of  Engineers,  the  Secretory  of  War  hereby  gives  unto  said  sanitary  district 
of  Chicago  permission  to  increase  the  flow  through  the  Chicago  River  from  250,000 
cubic  feet  per  minute  to  350,000  cubic  feet  per  minute  until  the  31st  day  of  March, 
1903,  after  which  date  it  shall  be  reduced  to  250,000  cubic  feet  per  minute,  as  now 
authorized,  upon  the  following  conditions: 

1.  That  the  permission  herein  given  shall  be  subject  to  such  modifications  as  in  the 
opinion  of  the  Secretary  of  War  the  public  interests  may  from  time  to  time  require. 

2.  That  said  sanitary  district  of  Chicago  shall  be  responsible  for  all  damages  inflicted 
upon  na\dgation  interests  by  reason  of  the  increase  in  flow  herein  authorized. 

Witness  my  hand  this  17th  day  of  January,  1903, 

[seal,]  Wm.  Cary  Sanger, 

Assistant  Secretary  of  War 


100  INTERNATIONAL  WATERWAYS  COMMISSION  PROGRESS  REPORT. 


Appendix  I5. 

Resolved  hy  the  senate,  the  house  of  representatives  concurring  herein: 

1.  That  it  is  the  policy  of  the  State  of  Illinois  to  procure  the  construction  of  a  water¬ 
way  of  the  greatest  practicable  depth  and  usefulness  for  navigation  from  Lake  Michi¬ 
gan  via  Des  Plaines  and  Illinois  Rivers  to  the  Mississippi  River,  and  to  encourage  the 
construction  of  feeders  thereto  of  like  proportions  and  usefulness. 

2.  That  the  United  States  is  hereby  requested  to  stop  work  upon  the  locks  and  dams 
at  Lagrange  and  at  Kampsville,  and  to  apply  all  funds  available  and  future  appropria¬ 
tions  to  the  improvement  of  the  channel  from  Lasalle  to  the  mouth,  with  a  view  to 
such  a  depth  as  will  be  of  present  utility,  and  in  such  manner  as  to  develop  progres¬ 
sively  all  the  depth  practicable  by  the  aid  of  a  large  water  supply  from  Lake  Michigan 
at  Chicago. 

3.  That  the  United  States  is  requested  to  aid  in  the  construction  of  a  channel  not 
less  than  160  feet  wide  and  22  feet  deep,  with  such  a  grade  as  to  give  a  velocity  of  3 
miles  per  hour  from  Lake  Michigan,  at  Chicago,  to  Lake  Joliet,  a  pool  of  the  Des  Plaines 
River  immediately  below  Joliet,  and  to  project  a  channel  of  similar  capacity  and 
not  less  than  14  feet  deep  from  Lake  Joliet  to  Lasalle,  all  to  be  designed  in  such  manner 
as  to  permit  future  development  to  a  greater  capacity. 

Adopted  by  the  senate  May  27,  1889. 

Concurred  in  by  the  house  of  representatives  May  27,  1899. 


Appendix  Iq. 

Report  to  the  International  Waterways  Commission  on  the  disposal  of  sewage  of  Chicago 
and  vicinity,  hy  Rudolph  Ilering  and  George  W.  Fuller,  December  18,  1906. 

New  Yoek  City,  December  18,  1906. 

To  the  International  Waterways  Commission: 

Sirs:  In  response  to  your  recent  request  we  beg  to  report  herewith  upon  several 
propositions  connected  with  the  question  of  extending  the  method  of  disposing  of  the 
sewage  of  Chicago  and  vicinity  by  means  of  dilution  with  Lake  Michigan  water.  Your 
instructions  may  be  briefly  summarized  as  follows: 

1.  Examination  into  the  sanitary  situation  at  Chicago  so  far  as  it  is  affected  by 
sewage  disposal. 

2.  Latest  conclusions  of  sanitary  engineers  as  to  the  amount  of  dilution  which  is 
required  to  make  sewage  inoffensive. 

3.  Is  the  extension  of  the  dilution  method  to  the  outlying  territory  the  only  way  to 
preserve  the  lives  and  health  of  the  people  of  Chicago? 

4.  For  the  Calumet  area,'*are  there  not  other  methods  of  sewage  disposal  which  may 
be  applied  at  a  cost  not  exceeding  much,  if  at  all,  the  cost  of  the  method  of  dilution 
proposed,  and  which  will  be  equally  effective  in  preventing  the  pollution  of  the  lake 
waters? 

5.  Description  of  the  various  systems  of  sewage  disposal  which  are  available  for  the 
Calumet  area,  with  a  statement  of  their  relative  efflciencies. 

6.  Statement  of  the  approximate  relative  costs  of  the  last  mentioned  so  far  as  they 
can  be  given  without  the  preparation  of  detailed  plans. 

Y^ou  further  state  clearly  in  your  letter  of  instructions  that  you  do  not  desire  an 
investigation  into  the  effect  of  the  present  method  upon  the  navigation  interests  of  the 
Great  Lakes,  as  that  has  already  been  officially  considered  by  yourselves.  Further, 
you  state  that  you  accejit  as  a  fixed  fact  the  Chicago  Drainage  Canal  as  designed  and 
buili ,  with  its  attendant  diversion  of  10,000  cubic  feet  per  second  of  lake  water  through 
the  Chicago  River  and  its  branches. 

In  accordance  with  further  instructions,  we  have  not  given  consideration  to  questions 
of  a  legal  or  legislative  nature.  We  have  viewed  this  problem  solely  as  an  engineering 
proposition  without  regard  to  interstate  questions  and  other  features  associated  with 
the  fact  that  a  portion  of  the  future  metropolitan  area  of  Chicago  will  obviously  lie 
within  the  State  of  Indiana.  It  is  further  understood  that  under  the  existing  circum¬ 
stances  we  are  to  give  you  our  opinion  without  entering  into  such  details  as  would  be 
required  by  addiiional  surveys  or  other  field  work  beyond  a  personal  inspection  of 
the  areas. 


INTERNATIONAL  WATERWAYS  COMMISSION  PROGRESS  REPORT.  101 


SEWAGE  DISPOSAL  AT  CHICAGO. 

Drainage  canal. — Nearly  all  of  the  sewage  from  the  population  of  Chicago  now 
connected  with  sewers  is  diluted  with  Lake  Michigan  water,  which,  since  January  17, 
1900,  has  been  allowed  to  flow  through  the  new  drainage  canal  and  thus  reach  the 
valley  of  the  Illinois  River.  This  method  of  disposal  is  the  outcome  of  various 
investigations,  ])articularly  of  a  commission  on  the  drainage  and  water  sujiply  of  Chi¬ 
cago  in  1886-87.  It  was  formally  adopted  in  1889  by  State  legislation,  creating  the 
“Sanitary  District  of  Chicago,”  specifically  providing  that  the  volume  of  lake  water 
for  purposes  of  dilution  shall  be  3^^  cubic  feet  per  second  for  each  1,000  of  population 
connected  with  the  sewers,  or  20,000  cubic  feet  per  minute  for  each  100,000  population. 

Early  methods. — In  early  days  part  of  the  sewage  of  Chicago  flowed  directly  into  the 
lake  and  part  into  the  Chicago  River  and  its  branches.  From  the  latter  a  portion  of 
the  water  and  sewage,  beginning  over  35  years  ago,  has  been  pumped  at  Rridgej)ort 
into  the  Illinois  and  Michigan  Canal,  as  is  true  to  some  extent  to-day.  It  is  under¬ 
stood  that  the  old  canal  is  to  be  discontinued  by  legislative  action  as  soon  as  equivalent 
transportation  and  power  facilities  can  be  arranged  for  by  means  of  the  new  canal. 

Area  of  sanitary  district. — In  1903  an  act  of  legislature  was  passed  extending  the  area 
of  the  sanitary  district  from  185  to  358.1  square  miles,  and  including  the  “north  shore 
addition  ”  of  78.6  square  miles,  and  the  “Calumet  addition”  of  94.5  square  miles.  The 
area  of  the  city  of  Chicago  is  190.638  square  miles,  leaving  167.462  square  miles  as  the 
area  of  the  })resent  sanitary  district  outside  of  the  city  limits. 

There  are  several  features  to  be  noted  in  connection  with  the  method  of  sewage 
disi)osal  of  the  city  of  Chicago  as  adopted  in  1889.  It  had  been  found  to  be  the  cheapest 
method  then  available  for  disposing  of  the  sewage  so  that  it  would  not  pollute  the 
jiublic  water  supjily,  which  was  then  and  is  now  derived  from  Lake  Michigan  through 
a  series  of  intake  cribs  located  at  various  distances  from  shore. 

Intercepting  sewers. — To  prevent  such  pollution  it  was  of  course  necessary  first  to 
divert  all  of  the  sewage  into  the  Chicago  River.  A  pure-water  commission  was 
apjiointed  by  the  mayor  in  1897  to  consider  the  question  of  intercepting  sewers  for  that 
jiurpose.  It  recommended  among  others  a  large  intercepting  sewer  to  collect  the 
sewage  from  the  area  along  the  lake  front  between  Seventy-third  and  Thirty-first 
Streets,  and  about  a  year  ago  a  20-foot  conduit  was  completed  on  Thirty-ninth  Street, 
through  which  the  diluted  sewage  from  this  area  now  passes  to  the  south  fork  of  the 
South  Rranch  of  the  Chicago  River.  At  present  there  is  a  gravity  flow  of  lake  water 
ordinarily  of  about  40,000  cubic  feet  per  minute.  Pumps  are  now  in  process  of  erection 
by  which  ultimately  there  will  be  pumped  through  this  conduit  about  120,000  cubic 
feet  of  lake  water  per  minute,  or  2,000  cubic  feet  per  second. 

On  Twenty-second  Street  there  was  formerly  a  main  sewer  draining  the  area  border¬ 
ing  on  the  lake  front  between  Thirty-first  and  Sixteenth  Streets,  and  discharging  into 
the  lake.  In  1898  the  flow  in  this  sewer  was  reversed  so  that  its  contents  now  discharge 
into  the  river. 

On  Twelfth  Street  in  1898  the  flow  in  the  main  sewer  was  also  reversed. 

In  the  heart  of  the  city,  or  business  section,  the  sewers  have  always  discharged  into 
the  river  and  not  into  the  lake.  The  same  is  true  of  a  considerable  area  lying  north 
of  the  Chicago  River  and  along  the  lake  shore.  To  facilitate  this  discharge  a  conduit 
was  put  in  service  in  1880  at  Fullerton  Avenue,  through  which  there  has  been  puinped 
about  12,000  cubic  feet  of  lake  water  per  minute  into  the  North  Rranch  of  the  Chicago 
River. 

At  the  present  time  there  is  no  sewage  entering  the  lake  between  Surf  Street  (just 
north  of  Lincoln  Park)  on  the  north  side  and  Seventy-third  Street  on  the  south  side 
of  Chicago. 

Plans  are  under  way  for  the  construction  of  the  necessary  works  to  collect  the  sewage 
along  the  lake  front  between  Seventy-third  and  Eighty-seventh  streets  and  to  i)ump  it 
into  sewers  west  of  Ilalsted  Street,  which  lead  to  the  Chicago  River.  There  is  very 
little  or  no  sewage  from  this  area  now  reaching  the  lake,  as  the  district  is  yet  practically 
unsewered. 

On  the  north  side  there  is  an  area  between  Surf  Street  and  the  northern  city  limits  and 
between  the  lake  shore  and  the  ridge  between  the  lake  and  the  river,  which  now  dis¬ 
charges  sewage  into  the  lake,  but  which  will  be  diverted  next  summer.  This  sewage 
is  to  be  collected  by  interceptors  conducting  it  to  Lawrence  Avenue,  where  will  be 
located  a  i)um])ing  station  and  a  conduit  for  pumping  the  sewage  and  about  35,000 
cubic  feet  of  lake  water  per  minute  into  the  North  Branch  of  the  Chicago  River. 

Farther  north,  at  Wilmette,  a  conduit  is  proposed  to  be  built  with  a  puinping  station 
near  the  Northern  Railroad  bridge  in  Evanston,  where  about  60,000  cubic  feet  of  lake 
water  per  minute  will  be  diverted  into  the  North  Branch  of  the  Chicago  River. 


102  INTEKNATIONAL  WATEKWAYS  COMMISSION  PKOGRESS  REPORT. 


Summary  of  flow  to  canal. — The  projected  flow  of  the  lake  water  to  the  canal  through 
the  Chicago  River  and  its  branches  to  the  drainage  canal  may  therefore  be  divided  and 
summarized  as  follows: 


Cubic  feet 
per  minute 

Cubic  feet 
per  second. 

Main  stream,  Chicago  R  ver . 

373,000 

6,217 

2,000 

200 

Thirty-ninth  Street  conduit . 

120;000 

12,000 

35,000 

60,000 

Fullerton  Avenue  conduit  . . 

T.a.wrence  Avenue  conduit . . . 

583 

Wilmette  conduit . . . 

1,000 

Total . 

600,000 

10,000 

The  volume  for  the  main  stream  of  the  Chicago  River,  as  above  stated,  is  obtained 
by  deducting  the  remaining  quantities  from  the  total. 

REQUIREMENTS  FOR  THE  REVERSAL  OP  FLOW  IN  THE  CHICAGO  RIVER. 

The  satisfactory  disposal  of  the  sewage  of  Chicago  by  means  of  the  new  drainage  canal 
requires  that,  at  and  after  heavy  rainfalls,  the  storm  water  and  sewage  from  the  water¬ 
shed  of  the  Chicago  River  shall  not  flow  into  I;ake  Michigan,  and  therefore  it  is  neces¬ 
sary  to  secure  a  practical  reversal  of  the  original  flow  in  the  Chicago  River. 

The  drainage  area  of  the  Chicago  River  is  about  270  square  miles.-  Flood  flows  in  the 
river  have  reached  a  maximum  of  about  10,000  cubic  feet  per  second,  or  600,000  cubic 
feet  per  minute,  and  this  fact  was  also  an  important  element  in  fixing  the  minimum  size 
of  the  present  drainage  canal. 

As  to  the  efficiency  of  arrangements  for  the  reversal  of  flow,  our  inquiries  lead  us  to 
believe  that  this  has  been  accomplished  in  a  satisfactory  way.  Up  to  the  present  time, 
and  owing  to  the  insufficient  waterway  of  some  parts  of  the  Chicago  River,  the  volume 
of  Lake  Michigan  water  going  through  the  river  has  not  approached  the  volume  above 
stated;  but  there  have  been  times  when  a  continuous  flow  of  the  Chicago  River  has 
been  toward  Lake  Michigan  for  perhaps  two  or  three  hours.  This  time  is  necessary  to  , 
properly  regulate  the  water  level  at  the  controlling  works  near  Lockport. 

POPULATION  OF  CHICAGO  NOW  SEWERING  INTO  THE  DRAINAGE  CANAL. 

We  find  that  the  present  population  of  Chicago  is,  in  round  numbers,  2,000,000  people, 
of  which  between  100,000  and  200,000  reside  south  of  Eighty-seventh  Street,  tributary 
to  the  Calumet  district,  but  within  the  city  limits.  Of  the  remaining  population ,  about 
300,000  reside  in  the  southern  lake  front  district.  This  area  is  tributary  to  the  Thirty- 
ninth  Street  pumping  station,  which,  since  about  January  1,  1906,  has  brought  about 
the  diversion  of  the  sewage  from  the  lake  into  the  South  Fork  of  the  south  branch  of  the 
Chicago  River. 

There  is  still  an  area  in  the  northwestern  part  of  the  city  north  of  Lincoln  Park, 
spoken  of  as  the  northern  lake  front  district,  which  drains  directly  into  the  lake.  Its 
population  may  be  very  roughly  estimated  at  70,000. 

There  is  a  considerable  area  south  of  Seventy -third  Street  and  west  of  Halsted  Street, 
and  also  a  portion  of  the  northwestern  part  of  the  city,  which,  are  of  a  semisuburban 
character.  Some  portions  have  been  provided  with  sewers  and  receive  the  overflow 
from  cesspools. 

So  far  as  we  are  able  to  ascertain  from  local  officials  and  without  making  a  personal 
canvass  as  to  details,  it  appears  that  there  are  now,  in  round  numbers,  about  1,500,000 
people  sewering  into  the  drainage  canal.  In  addition  to  the  sewage,  there  enters  it  a 
considerable  quantity  of  trade  wastes,  notably  about  2,000,000  gallons  from  the  stock- 
yard  district,  and  from  quite  a  number  of  other  industrial  establishments,  such  as  tan¬ 
neries,  wool-pulling  establishments,  etc.,  as  stated  by  the  sanitary  inspector  in  the  last 
report  of  the  health  department. 

It  is  our  understanding  that  the  present  sewage  disposal  project  for  Chicago  is  not 
intended  to  provide  for  the  disposal  of  trade  wastes  now  discharged  into  the  sewers. 
While  comparatively  little  has  been  done  as  yet  to  remove  them  from  the  sewers,  we 
have  been  informed  that  it  is  proposed  to  take  up  this  matter  actively. 

INFLUENCE  OF  SEWAGE  ON  CHICAGO  WATER  SUPPLY. 

The  city  of  Chicago  receives  its  water  supply  from  Lake  Michigan  through  a  series  of 
tunnels  of  various  lengths,  ranging  from  about  1  to  5  miles  from  shore.  Most  of  them 
extend  from  the  shore  about  2  miles.  The  total  pumping  capacity  for  this  supply  is 


INTERNATIONAL  WATERWAYS  COMMISSION  PROGRESS  REPORT.  103 


stated  to  be  529,000,000  gallons  in  24  hours.  In  1905  the  average  daily  pumi)-age  was 
recorded  as  399,000,000  gallons. 

Since  the  removal  of  the  sewage  through  the  drainage  canal  was  systematically  begun, 
in  January,  1900,  the  appearance  of  the  water  of  the  Chicago  River  has  shown  marked 
improvement. 

The  effect  of  the  drainage  canal  upon  the  hygienic  quality  of  the  public  water 
supply  may  be  studied  in  connection  with  the  typhoid  fever  death  rates  at  Chicago, 
which  are  recorded  in  the  next  table,  together  with  corresponding  death  rates  for  a 
number  of  other  American  cities.  It  is  not  to  be  assumed  that  typhoid  fever  is  entirely 
due  to  the  jiollution  of  the  public  water  supply  at  Chicago  or  elsewhere,  as  it  is  well 
known  that  there  are  other  means  of  transmitting  this  disease.  But  its  relation  to 
the  public  water  supply  is  so  intimate  that  it  gives,  perhaps,  the  best  general  idea  of 
the  sanitary  quality  of  the  water,  and  therefore  it  frequently  has  been  used  as  a  rough 
means  of  such  measurement. 

There  are  other  factors  beside  the  drainage  canal  to  be  considered  carefully  in  con¬ 
nection  with  the  typhoid  fever  statistics  at  Chicago,  and  some  of  which  should  be 
mentioned  here.  Prior  to  1900  there  was  a  substantial  improvement  in  the  public 
water  supply,  partly  due  to  the  extension  of  some  of  the  intake  cribs  and  tunnels 
farther  into  the  lake  and  partly  to  the  reversal  of  the  flow  of  a  number  of  the  sewers  from 
the  lake  into  the  river,  such  as  those  at  Twelfth  and  Twenty-second  Streets,  in  1898. 
These  are  important  factors  in  explaining  the  absence  in  the  late  nineties  of  such 
excessive  tyi)hoid  death  rates  as  were  noted  at  the  beginning  of  that  decade. 

Since  the  opening  of  the  drainage  canal  typhoid  fever  at  Chicago  has  been  rather 
unusually  prevalent  at  times.  This  was  especially  true  in  1902-3,  when  it  is  under¬ 
stood,  portions  of  the  supply  became  contaminated  after  leaving  the  intake  crib. 
These  accidental  pollutions  have  since  been  corrected. 

The  report  of  the  city  chemist  of  Chicago,  as  given  in  the  last  annual  report  of  the 
department  of  health,  shows  that  on  an  average  in  1905  the  city  water  supply  was  con¬ 
sidered  by  him  to  be  safe  about  85  per  cent  of  the  time. 

While  there  has  been  a  marked  improvement  in  recent  years  in  the  quality  of  the 
Chicago  water  supply,  due  to  the  progressive  elimination  of  sewage  from  the  lahe,  there 
is  stiUroom  for  more  improvement.  These  improvements  refer  to  the  pollution  along 
the  lake  front  north  of  Lincoln  Park,  which  is  being  corrected,  and  to  the  “Calumet 
area”  south  of  Eighty-seventh  Street,  which  is  now  under  consideration. 


Comparison  of  the  annual  number  of  recorded  deaths  from  typhoid  fever  per  100.000 
population  at  Chicago  and  other  American  cities,  1890-1905. 


Year. 

Chi¬ 

cago. 

Mil¬ 

wau¬ 

kee. 

De¬ 

troit. 

Cleve¬ 

land. 

Buf¬ 

falo. 

To¬ 

ronto. 

Bos¬ 

ton. 

New 

York. 

Phila¬ 

del¬ 

phia. 

Balti¬ 

more. 

Wash¬ 

ington. 

1890 . 

83 

33 

18 

09 

44 

80 

43 

21 

64 

57 

89 

1891 . 

1()0 

33 

13 

50 

56 

90 

33 

22 

64 

34 

86 

1892 . . . 

103 

31 

64 

59 

38 

40 

25 

14 

40 

42 

47 

T2 

1893  .... 

42 

37 

29 

52 

37 

40 

26 

20 

40 

72 

1894  . 

31 

26 

27 

29 

62 

20 

23 

17 

32 

49 

72 

1895 . 

32 

25 

24 

35 

28 

30 

32 

17 

40 

28 

69 

1896  . 

53 

18 

23 

43 

22 

24 

32 

16 

3  / 

51 

1897  . 

29 

11 

15 

23 

19 

18 

33 

16 

33 

3/ 

42 

1898  .... 

38 

17 

18 

34 

29 

16 

34 

20 

51 

38 

64 

18^ 

26 

17 

13 

32 

26 

19 

30 

16 

75 

30 

82 

1900  . 

20 

21 

18 

54 

27 

19 

25 

21 

35 

37 

77 

1901  . 

29 

21 

20 

36 

27 

16 

25 

20 

33 

27 

67 

1 002 

44 

16 

17 

33 

33 

13 

35 

21 

44 

A'2 

79 

1903 . 

31 

17 

17 

114 

35 

15 

20 

18 

70 

36 

48 

1^ 

19 

13 

16 

48 

91 

I  22 

18 

17 

48 

36 

43 

1905 . 

16 

20 

12 

15 

23 

! . 

20 

16 

36 

45 

LATEST  CONCLUSIONS  AS  TO  THE  REQUIRED  DEGREE  OF  DILUTION  FOR  THE  DISPOSAL 

OF  SEWAGE  WITHOUT  NUISANCE. 

The  disposal  of  sewage  by  dilution  depends  on  the  amount  of  oxygen  in  the  diluting 
water  being  sufTicient  to  prevent  putrefaction  of  the  organic  matter  in  the  sewage  as 
the  latter  undergoes  bacterial  decomposition.  If  the  oxygen  is  deficient,  bacterial 
decomposition  produces  what  is  called  “putrefaction,”  with  its  various  attendivnt 
bad  odors,  such  as  noted  for  years  in  Chicago  at  “Bubbly  Creek.”  If  there  is  a  suth- 
cient  amount  of  oxygen  dissolved  in  the  water  to  combine  with  this  organic  matter, 
decomposition  goes  on  without  any  foul  odors  and  the  organic  matter  is  reduced  to 
inert  matter  in  an  inoffensive  way. 


104  IXTERXATIONAL  WATERWAYS  COMMISSION  PROGRESS  REPORT. 


This  question  is  one  of  balancing  the  amount  of  oxygen  in  a  given  volume  of  water 
with  the  amount  of  decomposing  organic  matter  in  the  sewage,  which  naturally  must 
vary  greatly. 

There  are  many  observations  of  more  or  less  accuracy  available  to  give  figures  for 
this  relation.  The  Massachusetts  State  board  of  health  made  a  special  inquiry  into 
this  subject  for  all  local  rivers  in  1902,  with  conclusions,  stated  on  page  452  cf  their 
annual  report  for  that  year,  as  follows: 

“The  results  of  the  investigations  show  that  where  the  quantity  of  water  available 
for  the  dilution  of  the  sewage  in  a  stream  exceeds  about  6  cubic  feet  per  second  per 
1,000  persons  discharging  sewage,  objectionable  conditions  are  unlikely  to  result  from 
the  gross  pollution  of  all  the  water  of  a  stream  in  dry  weather.  Under  favorable  cir¬ 
cumstances,  such  as  in  cases  where  the  sewage  is  discharged  at  many  outlets  into  a 
large  body  of  water,  objectionable  conditions  may  not  result  where  the  dilution  is 
sornewhat  less  than  6  cubic  feet  per  second  per  1,000  persons;  but  objectionable  con¬ 
ditions  have  resulted  in  all  of  the  cases  thus  far  examined  where  the  flow  has  been  less 
than  3.5  cubic  feet  per  second  per  1,000  persons  discharging  sewage  into  the  stream.” 

These  conclusions  apply  for  the  most  part  to  comparatively  small  streams  into 
which  much  manufacturing  waste  is  discharged  and  upon  which  mill  ponds  are  sit¬ 
uated. 

There  are  times  when  the  flow  of  water  in  the  drainage  canal  appears  to  have  been 
insufficient  to  eliminate  objectionable  odors  entirely.  How  far  this  may  be  explained 
by  confusion  on  the  part  of  the  observers  of  the  putrefactive  odors  emanating  from  the 
Illinois  and  Michigan  Canal  with  those  of  the  new  canal,  and  how  far  it  may  be  due 
to  temporary  reductions  in  the  rate  of  flow  in  the  new  canal  and  river  to  facilitate 
construction  work,  and  also  to  the  effect  of  rainfalls  and  to  old  deposits  in  the  South 
Fork,  we  are  unable  to  say. 

The  new  canal  appears  to  serve  at  present  about  one-half  the  population  for  which 
it  was  designed,  and  through  it  flows  a  volume  of  lake  water  which  is  variable,  but 
which  averages  not  far  from  one-half  of  the  ultimate  quantity. 

It  is  our  judgment  that  for  large  canals  with  the  trade  wastes  eliminated  a  dilution 
of  3J  cubic  feet  per  second  for  each  1,000  population  connected  with  the  sewers  also 
receiving  storm  water  is  as  low  a  figure  as  it  is  now  possible  to  state.  Local  condi¬ 
tions,  especially  temperature,  which  affects  bacterial  activities  and  the  coefficient  of 
absorption  of  oxygen  by  water,  and  still  other  matters,  bear  upon  this  question,  the 
detailed  discussion  of  which  is  not  now  necessary.  We  feel  certain  that  a  dilution 
of  2^  cubic  feet  per  second  would  cause  offense  at  times,  and  probably  also  a  dilu¬ 
tion  of  3  cubic  feet  per  second. 

FUTURE  POPULATION  ON  AN  AREA  TRIBUTARY  TO  THE  CHICAGO  RIVER  AND  DRAINAGE 

CANAL  WITH  REFERENCE  TO  SEWAGE  DISPOSAL. 

On  the  basis  of  the  diversion  of  10,000  cubic  feet  per  second  of  Lake  Michigan  water, 
on  the  present  assumption  of  3J  feet  per  second  as  being  the  volume  to  be  provided 
for  each  1,000  population  connected  with  the  sewers,  and  on  the  assumption  of  elimi¬ 
nating  objectionable  trade  wastes,  the  present  method  of  disposal  may  serve  until  the 
population  on  the  drainage  area  of  the  Chicago  River  reaches  3,000,000  people. 

On  the  further  assumption  that  through  the  Chicago  River  and  various  conduits 
connected  with  its  branches  there  will  be  a  flow  equal  to  14.000  cubic  feet  per  second, 
which  is  the  capacity  of  the  rock  section  of  the  drainage  canal,  the  maximum  popu¬ 
lation  which  might  be  taken  care  of  in  this  way  is  about  4,200,000  people. 

\Wth  a  Im-ge  portion  of  the  270  square  miles  draining  into  the  Chicago  River,  but 
not  yet  built  up,  even  on  a  suburban  basis,  it  is  evident  that  in  future  years  there 
will  be  a  much  greater  population  than  now  exists. 

W  e  have  considered  the  rate  of  growth  of  Chicago  from  various  viewpoints,  notably 
the  density  of  its  population,  and  have  compared  its  growth  with  that  of  other  metro¬ 
politan  districts.  There  is,  of  course,  no  way  of  predicting  accurately  how  rapid  will 
be  the  growth  of  Chicago  in  future  years;  but  it  is  a  reasonable  assumption  that  before 
many  years  it  will  become  a  city  of  some  five  or  six  millions  of  population.  It  seems 
reasonable  to  infer  that  the  population  residing  upon  the  area  tributary  to  the  Chicago 
River  and  its  branches  will  ultimately  exceed  both  the  3,000,000  and  4,200,000  esti¬ 
mates  above  mentioned.  In  other  words,  the  present  dilution  method  will  certainly 
not  alone  for  all  time  take  care  of  the  crude  sewage  of  this  area. 

There  are  several  available  methods  for  the  purification  of  sewage  depending  upon 
the  degree  of  purifaction  desired,  as  will  be  noted  beyond  in  connection  with  the 
Calumet  area. 

It  is  not  probable  that  the  sewage  of  the  old  part  of  Chicago  will  ever  be  purified  by 
artificial  means,  as  it  would  be  proportionately  much  more  difficult  and  expensive  to 
deliver  the  sewage  to  suitable  sites  for  purification  than  to  continue  the  present  dilu- 


INTERNATIONAI.  WATERWAYS  COMMISSION  PROGRESS  REPORT.  105 


tion  method.  It  is  different  with  the  outlyin"  districts  tributary  to  the  Chic^o 
River.  In  the  future,  when  these  districts  become  built  up  so  that  the  population 
exceeds  the  limits  above  stated,  the  installation  of  sewage  purification  works  will 
necessarily  follow. 

PROPOSED  CALUMET  CANAL. 

The  more  essential  features  of  this  ])roposed  canal,  as  obtained  from  local  oflicials, 
may  be  summarized  as  follows: 

Location. — The  canal  would  extend  from  a  point  on  the  Little  Calumet  River  near 
Blue  Island,  through  the  Sag  Valley,  and  enter  the  drainage  canal  near  Sag  Station. 

Territory  tributary. — The  total  drainage  area  of  the  Calumet  River  is  825  square 
miles,  of  which  473  are  in  Indiana.  Within  the  limits  of  the  sanitary  district  of 
Chicago  and  south  of  Eighty-seventh  Street,  the  area  is  94.5  square  miles,  with  a 
population  of  about  100,000  in  1900.  It  is  stated  that  the  ])opulation  has  nearly 
doubled  within  the  past  six  years,  and  it  is  expected  to  reach  a  million  people  or 
more  within  a  fairly  short  period,  as  the  conditions  for  a  manufacturing  district  are 
very  favorable. 

Size. — The  size  of  this  canal,  as  proposed,  is  such  as  to  give  a  flow  of  4,000  cubic 
feet  per  second. 

Reversal  oj  fioxv. — The  natural  flow  of  the  Calumet  River  exceeds  12,500  cubic  feet 
per  second.  It  is  proposed,  if  suitable  legislation  can  be  secured,  to  construct  a  dam, 
below  Thorn  Creek,  at  the  southern  boundary  of  the  sanitary  district,  and  divert  into 
Lake  Michigan,  through  a  channel  to  be  built  about  17^  miles  east  of  the  State  line 
the  flow  of  tliis  streom,  with  a  drainage  area  of  about  587_square  miles.  The  size  of  the 
proposed  Calumet  Canal  is  too  small  to  secure  at  all  times  a  reversal  of  flow  of  the 
remaining  portion  of  the  area, which  is  about  240  square  miles.  It  is  pro])osed  to  put 
a  controlling  lock  on  the  canal  east  of  Blue  Island  to  prevent  flood  waters  from  this 
lower  area  entering  the  canal,  at  which  times  sewage  entering  the  river  on  the  lake 
side  of  the  lock  would  go  into  the  lake. 

The  proposed  c'anal  is  insuflicient  to  carry  in  the  future  all  the  storm  flows  of  the 
Sag  Valley  itself.  These  would,  at  least,  in  part,  require  diversion  through  present 
or  other  channels. 

Cost. — The  estimated  cost  of  this  proposed  canal  is  §12,000,000. 

Population  to  he  served. — On  the  assumption  already  stated,  this  canal,  by  dilution, 
would  dis])Ose  of  the  sewage  of  about  1,200,000  people,  not  including  objectionable 
trade  wastes.  This  makes  the  cost  of  sewage  dis])Osal  $10  per  capita  for  the  entire 
future  population,  or  about  $00  for  the  present  population.*  The  sewage  would  for 
the  most  part  reach  the  canal  by  gravity  through  the  Calumet  River,  so  that  the  cost 
of  maintenance  would  be  comparatively  small. 

In  passing,  we  may  say  that  the  Calumet  area,  both  in  Illinois  and  Indiana,  is  cer¬ 
tain  to  develop  rapidly^  and  its  population  will  eventually  far  exceed  the  above 
figure. 

RELATION  OF  SEWAGE  DISPOSAL  FOR  THE  CALUMET  AREA  TO  THE  WATER  SUPPLY  OF 

CHICAGO. 

For  the  reasons  above  stated  in  connection  with  the  reversal  of  flow,  the  sanitary 
effect  upon  Lake  Michigan  water  at  the  Hyde  Park  intake  and  vicinity  of  this  pro¬ 
posed  Calumet  Canal  would  not  be  nearly  as  effective  as  that  of  the  main  canal  for  the 
Chicago  River  territory  and  neighboring  intakes.  This  fact  is  imjiortaiit  in  connection 
with  the  degree  of  sewage  ])urification  required  by  artificial  purification  works  to  give 
a  sanitary  effect  equal  to  that  of  the  proposed  canal. 

There  seems  to  be  no  doubt  that  at  times  the  sewage  entering  the  Calumet  River 
under  present  conditions  from  this  district  pollutes  the  lake  water  from  the  Hyde  Park 
intake  crib.  It  may  pollute  the  water  at  other  intakes,  but  our  evidence  is  not  conclu¬ 
sive.  In  the  future,  when  the  Calumet  area  is  built  uj),  it  is  possible  that  intake  cribs 
may  be  built  nearer  to  the  mouth  of  the  Calumet  River  than  is  the  Hyde  Park  intake. 

In  view  of  the  fact  that  the  proposed  Calumet  Canal  can  not  keep  all  sewage  out  of 
Lake  Michigan  at  times  of  heavy  rainfall,  it  is  important  to  note  that  the  water  supply 
of  this  section  of  (  hicago  will  eventually  have  to  be  purified  by  modern  filtration  works. 
This  can  be  done  at  moderate  cost,  and  it  will  be  the  cheapest  and  best  solution  of  this 
promlem  to  filter  the  water  supjily  of  this  district  and  to  purify  the  sewage  to  such  a 
degree  that  the  effluent  will  be  fairly  clear  and  nonputrescible,  that  is,  free  from  dis¬ 
agreeable  odors.  With  additional  expense  the  sewage  effluent  (of  the  quality  just 
stated)  can  be  given  a  supplementary  purification,  making  it  practically  free  of  bac¬ 
teria  by  treating  it  with  a  germicide  or  by  filtering  it  according  to  water  purification 

practice.  .  .  • 

Under  existing  conditions  we  are  firmly  of  the  opinion  that  all  the  purification  re¬ 
quired  of  the  sewage  of  the  Calumet  district  is  to  make  it  fairly  clear  and  nonputrescible. 


106  INTERNATIONAL  WATERWAYS  COMMISSION  PROGRESS  REPORT. 


AVAILABLE  METHODS  OF  SEWAGE  DISPOSAL  OTHER  THAN  THAT  OF  THE  DILUTION  METHOD 

PROPOSED  FOR  THE  CALUMET  AREA, 

The  degree  of  purification  of  sewage  by  various  forms  of  treatment  differs  naturally 
under  different  local  conditions,  but  from  general  experience  approximate  results  may 
be  compared,  substantially  as  follows; 


Percentage  purification. 


Method. 

Suspended 

matter. 

Organic 

matter. 

Bacteria. 

Fine  screens  (30-mesh  or  finer) . 

15 

10 

15 

Sedimentation . 

65 

30 

Septic  treatment . 

65 

30 

(>5 

Chemical  precipitation . 

85 

50 

85 

Contact  filters  i . 

85-90 

65-70 

80-85 

Sprinkhng  filters  i . 

85-90 

65-70 

90-95 

Intermittent  sand  filters  i . 

95-99 

90-98 

98-99 

1  The  figures  for  the  last  three  forms  of  treatment  are  on  the  assumption  that  the  sewage  is  given  some 
form  of  preparatory  treatment  before  it  is  applied  to  the  filters,  and  that  with  the  sprinkling  filters  the 
effluent  is  allowed  to  settle. 


^  It  is  to  be  stated  that  none  of  the  first  four  treatments  above  tabulated  will  by  itself 
give  a  nonputrescible  effluent.  Therefore  they  can  be  used  here  only  in  connection 
with  some  form  of  filtration. 

For  large  works  filters  can  be  more  economically  operated  if  the  sewage  is  first 
clarified  in  part,  as  stated  in  connection  with  the  above  summary.  The  most  appro¬ 
priate  method  for  this  preparatory  or  preliminary  treatment  is  considered  by  most 
sanitary  engineers  in  this  country  and  abroad  to  consist  of  septic  tanks,  which  is  the 
expression  applied  to  sedimentation  basins  in  which  the  deposited  sludge  is  allowed 
to  accumulate  to  undergo  bacterial  action. 

There  are  several  forms  of  filters,  the  most  widely  known  of  which  in  this  country 
is  the  intermittent  sand  filter,  sometimes  mentioned  as  the  so-called  “land  treatment” 
for  sewage  disposal.  This  method  was  considered  in  1886-87  for  the  entire  Chicago 
area  and  reported  upon  unfavorably  on  account  of  its  being  more  expensive  than  the 
adopted  method  of  dilution. 

Local  experiences e  find  that  a  feeling  appears  to  prevail  among  some  persons  at 
Chicago  against  land  treatment  of  sewage,  due  perhaps  to  the  unsuccessful  operation 
of  the  sewage  farm  at  Pullman,  which  is  situated  within  this  Calumet  area. 

We  are  familiar  with  the  facts  and  experiences  at  Pullman,  and  are  clearly  of  the 
opinion  that  they  are  not  necessarily  a  criterion  for  the  Calumet  area.  This  opinion 
is  based  partly  upon  the  small  size  of  particles  of  the  soil  at  the  Pullman  farm  and 
partly  upon  the  fact  that  the  farm  was  devoted  principally  to  agricultural  rather  than 
sewage  purification  purposes. 

Sand  areas. — We  have  examined  the  tracts  of  lake  sand  which  are  found  in  Indiana 
and  to  a  limited  extent  in  the  township  of  Thornton,  Ill.  The  latter  areas  are  too 
limited  in  extent  and  too  shallow  to  be  considered  for  present  purposes.  The  only 
areas  of  suitable  porous  sand  for  land  treatment  of  the  Calumet  sewage  are  in  Indiana. 

We  have  collected  five  samples  of  this  sand  for  mechanical  analysis,  and  have 
obtained  the  results  as  to  size  of  sand  grains.  Pepresentative  results  average  sub¬ 
stantially  as  follows: 

Millimeters. 


Effective  size . .  0. 15 

Uniformity  coefficient . ' .  1.  40 


If  we  disregard  the  State  boundary  line,  a  large  tract  of  sand  of  a  suitable  character 
is  available  for  the  disposal  of  the  sewage  of  this  district.  The  best  area  lies  between 
the  Little  Calumet  and  the  Grand  Calumet  Rivers  and  extends  east  of  Hammond  for 
many  miles. 

Within  the  past  six  or  eight  years  great  strides  have  been  taken  in  the  field  of  sewage 
purification  in  connection  with  works  of  wholly  artificial  construction.  We  refer  par¬ 
ticularly  to  filters  of  coarse,  firm  material,  such  as  broken  stone,  slag,  or  clinker,  and 
usually  spoken  of  as  “coarse-grained  filters,”  as  distinguished  from  fine-grained  sand 
filters. 

Coarse-grained  filters  are  of  two  types,  spoken  of  as  “contact  filters”  and  “sprinkling 
filters,”  according  to  the  method  by  which  the  sewage  is  applied  to  them.  These 


INTERNATIONAL  WATERWAYS  COMMISSION  PROGRESS  REPORT.  107 

filters  produce  an  effluent  which  will  not  putrefy  when  they  are  operated  at  a  rate  far 
greater  than  that  which  is  possible  for  sand  filters. 

We  shall  describe  briefly  each  of  these  types  of  sewage-purification  methods  and 
state  their  approximate  cost  of  construction  on  suitable  sites  for  the  Calumet  area, 
based  upon  unit  prices  in  accordance  with  experience  elsewhere. 

An  outline  is  first  required,  however,  of  the  intercepting  sewers,  pumping  stations, 
and  rising  mains  necessary  to  collect  and  deliver  the  sewage  to  the  filter  sites,  of  which 

there  are  several  available.  .  ,  ,  ,  ^  ^ 

Regardless  of  the  particular  kind  of  filter  found  most  suitable  for  the  Calumet  area, 
there  are  a  number  of  features  common  to  all  methods,  and  which  may  be  stated  as 

follows:  .  ,1  .  X  •  1  1 

Separate  sewers. — With  the  adoption  of  sewage  filters  for  this  district  we  are  clearly 

of  the  opinion  that  it  would  be  advisable  hereafter  to  build  a  separate  system  of  sewers 
for  domestic  sewage  only.  Some,  if  not  all,  of  the  existing  main  sewers  could  be  used 
for  the  removal  of  storm  and  surface  water  only  and  new  sewers  parallel  them  for  sew- 
a<^e  removal,  or  some  of  the  existing  sewers  could  be  utilized  for  sewage  remo\ab 
TGOiiirin^  nGW  structurGS  for  storm-wRtGr  rGmovRl.  Trado  w  D-stGS  should  bo  oxcludcd 
from  all  Wers.  We  have  obviously  not  included  in  the  cost  of  purifying  the  sewage 
any  expense  for  the  main  sewers  or  laterals  to  collect  it  and  deliver  it  to  the  interceptors. 

VoluTfie  of  sewage. — We  have  assumed  that  the  sewage  of  this  district  w’'ill  approxi¬ 
mate  130  gallons  per  capita  daily  on  an  average.  Wdth  a  population  of  1,200  000  the 
total  volume  of  sew^age  w^ould  therefore  be  about  156,000,000  gallons  daily.  W  e  have 
also  allowed  for  ground-water  seepage  up  to  1,000  gallons  per  square  inile  per  day. 

Interceptors.— Y or  purposes  of  making  approximate  but  liberal  estimates  of  cost  ot 
purifying  the  sew^age  of  this  district,  wx  have  prepared  sketches  showdng  the  intercept¬ 
ing  sewers  which  wdll  be  required  in  order  to  collect  the  sewage  of  the  district  at  four  or 
more  centrally  located  pumping  stations.  W  e  have  assumed  that  these  intercepting 
sew'ers  will  be  built  of  concrete,  and  wfflen  flowing  full  have  a  capacity  of  250  gallons  per 
24  hours  for  each  person  resident  upon  the  area  tributary  to  the  interceptor. 
Wfflen  full,  these  interceptors  have  been  assumed  to  have  a  velocity  of  2.5  feet  per 
second  We  have  also  assumed,  after  excluding  that  portion  of  the  Calumet  district 
reached  by  extreme  high  w^ater  in  the  lake,  that  on  an  average  the  population  con¬ 
tributing  to  the  four  or  more  pumping  stations  w'ould  be  about  20  to  25  persons  per  acre. 
On  this'^basis  the  length  and  size  of  the  necessary  intercepting  sewers  have  been 

obtained.  ,  ,  ,  . 

Pumping  stations. — For  convenience  we  have  located  foiu'  main  pumping  stations 

near  Riverdale,  Harvey,  South  Hammond,  and  South  Chicago.  There  lyill  be  re¬ 
quired  wfflen  the  district  is  built  up  to  the  extent  herein  considered,  a  total  punqiing 
capacity  of  about  340,000,000  gallons  daily,  including  necessary  reserve  capacity  at 

each  station.  ,  ,  ,  ,  ,  , 

Septic  tonits.— Regardless  of  the  type  of  filter  adopted,  the  sewage  w^ould  be  screened 

at  the  pumping  stations,  and  then  flow  through  septic  tanks  having  a  capacity  of  eight 
hours’  flow  on  an  average.  These  tanks  would  be  about  12  to  15  feet  deep,  built  of  con¬ 
crete,  and  arranged  in  compartments,  so  as  to  facilitate  septic  action  on  the  deposited 
sludge,  but  without  such  action  taking  place  in  the  flowing  sewage  itself.  Uw  ing  to 
the  severe  winter  climate  in  this  vicinity,  it  is  our  opinion  that  it  w^ould  be  w'lse  to 

cover  these  tanks.  .  ,  ,  .  . 

Of  the  solid  matters  in  suspension  in  the  sew^age  about  6o  per  cent  would  deposit  in 

the  septic  tanks,  and  of  these  deposited  solid  matters  about  one-half  w^ould  be  liquefied 

and  gasified  by  bacterial  decomposition.  .  ,  ^  c 

The  sludge,  wfflich  would  be  removed  at  intervals  of  once  a  year  or  so  from  the  tanks, 
is  estimated  to  contain  about  85  per  cent  water  and  to  amount  to  about  2  cubic  yards 
per  1  000  000  gallons.  Bacterial  action  converts  this  sludge  to  a  practically  inert  mass 
which  can  be  pumped  in  thin  layers  onto  adjoining  land  allowed  to  dry. 

This  is  the  form  of  preliminary  treatment  in  use  in  some  40  places  in  this  country, 
including  Plainfield,  N.  J.,  Saratoga,  N.  Y.,  Mansfield,  Ohio  Champaign,  Ill  etc  It 
is  the  preliminary  step  in  the  works  under  construction  at  Columbus,  Ohio,  ^Ber  elabo¬ 
rate  tests  of  different  methods  were  made  for  a  period  of  nearly  one  year.  It  has  also 
been  adopted  recently  at  Baltimore,  Md.,  Reading,  Pa.,  and  Waterbury,  Conn.,  and 
has  been  recently  proposed  for  Paterson,  N.  J.,  in  a  somewhat  modified  form 

This  form  of  preliminary  treatment  has  been  and  is  now  extensively  used  in  Europe 
with  satisfactory  results  where  the  tanks  are  built  and  operated  to  meet  local  conditions 

as  to  volume  and  strength  of  sewage.  u 

The  odors  from  large  open  septic  tanks  are  seldom  noticeable  a  few  hundred  feet 
away.  Under  good  management  a  septic  effluent  can  be  applied  to  sprinkling  filters  so 
that  no  objectionable  odors  should  be  carried  one-quarter  of  a  inile. 

The  cost  of  building  and  operating  septic  tanks  would  be  substantially  the  same  tor 
all  filter  projects,  and  is  considered  under  each  as  a  common  factor. 


108  INTERNATIONAL  WATERWAYS  COMMISSION  PROGRESS  REPORT. 


INTERMITTENT  SAND  FILTERS. 


This  well-known  method  consists  of  applying  the  partially  clarified  sewage  coming 
from  the  septic  tanks  to  areas  of  porous  sand,  below  the  surface  of  which  at  depths  of 
from  3  to  5  feet  are  underdrains  of  open-jointed  pipe  to  convey  the  purified  sewage  to 
the  nearest  watercourse.  The  sewage  is  applied  only  at  intervals  of  once  a  day  or  so 
to  a  depth  of  perhaps  6  inches.  Between  applications  the  sand  layer  is  allowed  to 
drain  so  that  its  pores  may  fill  with  air.  This  aeration  of  the  pores  of  the  sand  allows 
bacterial  processes  to  convert  the  organic  matter  to  a  large  extent  to  harmless  mineral 
matter.  The  effluent  is  practically  free  of  noticeable  suspended  matter  and  objection¬ 
able  organisms,  and  can  be  discharged  directly  into  the  nearest  watercourse. 

This  method  is  now  in  successful  use  in  40  to  50  places  in  this  country  where  porous 
sand  areas  are  available.  It  serves  a  total  population  of  about  350,000  people.  Well- 
known  plants  are  to  be  found  at  Framingham,  Brockton,  Clinton,  and  Worcester,  Mass.; 
Pawtucket  and  Woonsocket,  R.  I.;  Meriden  and  New  Britain,  Conn.;  Saratoga, 
N.  Y.,  etc. 

F rom  time  to  time  it  is  necessary  to  rake,  harrow,  or  plow  the  surface  of  intermittent 
sand  filters  and  to  remove  the  scum  which  slowly  accumulates  there.  At  intervals  it 
is  necessary  to  scrape  off  several  inches  of  the  upper  portion  of  the  sand  layer  when  it 
is  found  that  they  are  so  clogged  that  harrowing  and  plowing  no  longer  prevents  the 
surface  from  remaining  covered  with  sewage. 

With  crude  sewage  it  appears  from  Massachusetts  evidence,  especially  from  the 
tests  conducted  for  a  period  of  19  years  at  the  Lawrence  Experiment  Station, 
that  it  would  be  necessary  to  provide  1  acre  of  intermittent  sand  filters  for  each  500 
persons  connected  with  the  sewers.  When  the  sewage  is  given  a  preliminary  treat¬ 
ment  in  septic  tanks,  and  when  the  filters  are  operated  under  intelligent  supervision, 
the  area  may  be  reduced  so  as  to  provide  1  acre  per  1,000  persons. 

The  most  suitable  natural  site  for  sand  filters  for  the  Calumet  area  is  to  be  found  in 
the  State  of  Indiana,  between  the  Little  Calumet  and  the  Grand  Calumet  Rivers,  east 
of  the  city  of  Hammond. 

It  is  possible  to  build  artificial  sand  filters  within  the  Calumet  district,  but  the  cost 
would  be  much  greater  than  for  any  of  the  projects  considered  in  this  report. 

Based  upon  our  knowledge  of  these  filters  elsewhere,  and  without  considering  inter¬ 
state  complications,  we  estimate  that  the  cost  of  installing  and  operating  such  a  plant, 
with  its  various  appurtenances,  east  of  Hammond,  and  of  a  capacity  of  about  180,000,000 
gallons  daily  to  serve  a  population  of  1,200,000  people,  would  be  as  follows; 


Estimated  cost  of  constructing  sand-filter  plant  and  appurtenances. 


Intercepting  sewers,  pumping  stations,  and  appurtenances,  including  a 

daily  capacity  of  340,000,000  gallons,  and  rising  mains . 

Septic  tanks,  60,000,000.  gallons  capacity,  covered,  including  sludge- 

disposal  facilities . 

Intermittent  sand  filters,  1,200  acres,  with  distributors,  drains,  office, 
laboratory,  etc . 


$5,  070,  000 
950,  000 
3,  600,  000 


.  .  9,620,000 

C  ontingencies  and  supervision,  15  per  cent .  443^  000 

Totul . .  11,063,000 

Annual  cost  of  operation. 


Pumping,  fuel,  labor,  and  repairs .  |300  000 

Supervision,  analytical,  and  clerical  assistants,  etc .  25^000 

Care  of  septic  tanks,  including  sludge  disposal .  36,’  000 

Care  of  sand  filters .  48o’  000 

Supplies  and  miscellanies .  25’  000 


866,  000 

Capitalizing  the  operating  expenses  at  5  per  cent  per  annum  there  is  obtained 
$17,320,000,  which,  when  added  to  the  estimated  construction  cost,  makes  a  total 
sum  of  $28,383,000  for  the  sand-filter  project. 

CONTACT  FILTERS. 

These  filters  consist  of  beds  of  broken  stone,  slag,  or  cinders,  placed  in  uncovered 
basins  to  a  depth  of  from  3  to  5  feet.  The  size  of  material  ranges  from  about  one- 
fourth  to  1  inch. 


INTERNATIONAL  WATERWAYS  COMMISSION  PROGRESS  REPORT.  109 


The  filters  are  ordinarily  operated  upon  the  fill  and  draw  plan;  that  is,  the  gate 
on  the  outlet  pipe  is  closed  until  the  voids  of  the  bed  are  filled  with  sewage  from  the 
septic  tanks.  After  filling,  the  filters  are  allowed  to  stand  full  for  an  hour  or  so,  then 
the  sewage  is  allowed  slowly  to  drain  out,  and  this  cycle  of  ojieration  is  repeated  once 
or  twice  a  day. 

When  the  filtering  material  is  drained  the  voids  fill  with  air,  and  it  is  during  these 
periods  of  draining  that  bacterial  processes  accomplish  the  })urification  of  the  organic 
matter,  which  to  a  large  degree  is  lodged  u])on  the  surfaces  of  the  filtering  material  as 
the  sewage  is  slowly  withdrawn  from  the  bed.  The  rates  of  filling  and  drawing  the 
beds  may  be  satisfactorily  controlled  by  a  number  of  automatic  devices  on  the  market 
and  which  are  in  successful  use  in  a  number  of  places. 

Contact  filters  are  an  Phiglish  adaptation  of  studies  made  some  15  years  ago  u])on 
the  gravel  filters  by  the  Massachusetts  State  Board  of  Health  at  the  Lawrence  Ex¬ 
periment  Station.  These  studies  were  begun  about  13  years  ago  at  London.  As 
an  outcome  of  these  and  numerous  other  investigations,  contact  fdters  have  been 
adopted  and  are  in  successful  use  for  dozens  of  English  cities,  the  largest  of  which  is 
Manchester,  wdth  a  population  of  about  600,000. 

In  this  country  contact  fdters  have  been  installed  for  a  dozen  or  more  small  cities, 
and  numerous  institutions.  Perhaps  the  best-knowm  plants  are  at  Plainfield,  N.  J., 
Mansfield,  Ohio,  and  Charlotte,  N.  C.  They  are  especially  applicable  to  i)rojects 
wdiere  only  a  small  amount  of  head  is  available  and  where  pumping  w'ould  be  required 
for  sprinkling  fdters. 

For  large  ])rojects,  and  where  pumping  is  not  a  factor,  recent  experiences  wdth 
sprinkling  filters  show  that  as  a  rule  they  are  more  economical.  Notwithstanding 
this,  contact  filters  have  served  and  wdll  serve  a  useful  purpose  in  the  field  of  sewage 
disposal  in  this  country.  Their  convenience  of  operation  makes  them  especially 
suitable  for  small  installations. 

Many  contact-filter  plants  have  their  beds  arranged  in  terraces  so  that  the  sewage 
may  be  ])assed  successively  through  two  or  three  filters.  There  are  a  number  of 
advantages  of  this  arrangement,  but  it  is  not  applicable  to  the  Calumet  district,  owdng 
to  the  level  area  of  the  available  sites.  One  of  the  advantages  of  the  double  and  triple 
contact  filters  is  that  they  may  be  operated  from  below^  during  wdnter  weather  and 
thus  guard  against  reductions  in  the  rate  of  filtration  due  to  freezing. 

The  most  available  and  suitable  local  sites  are:  A  tract  w^est  of  Harvey  and  betw  een 
the  Illinois  Central  and  Rock  Island  Railroads;  a  tract  west  of  Hammond  and  the 
local  branch  of  the  Fort  Wayne  Railroad;  and  a  tract  betw’een  Lakes  Calumet  and 
Wolf. 

As  to  the  rate  of  filtration,  w^e  have  assumed  that  contact  filters  should  be  5  feet 
in  depth  and  that  they  wmuld  satisfactorily  purify  the  effluent  from  septic  tanks  at  the 
rate  of  600,000  gallons  per  acre  per  24  hours.  This  means  that  1  acre  of  contact  filters 
should  be  provided  for  every  4,000  persons  connected  with  the  sewers. 

The  eflluent  from  contact  filters  operated  under  these  conditions  would  be  ordinarily 
free  from  objectionable  amounts  of  suspended  matter,  and  the  amount  of  organic  matter 
w^ould  be  reduced  so  that  it  w^ould  not  ])utrefy  upon  standing.  On  an  average  about 
15  to  20  ])er  cent  of  the  bacteria  in  the  crude  sewage  would  be  present  in  the  effluent. 
It  would  not  be  improper  to  discharge  such  an  effluent  as  it  carite  from  the  filters 
directly  into  the  nearest  w^atercourse. 

The  amount  of  attendance  requmed  for  contract  fdters  is  not  great,  and  is  covered 
mainly  by  the  necessary  gatemen,  analysts,  and  foremen.  At  intervals  all  of  the 
material  w’ould  have  to  be  removed  from  the  filters,  washed,  and  replaced. 

The  approximate  cost  of  buildingand  operating  a  contract-filter  plant  with  all  needed 
appurtenances  of  a  capacity  of  about  180,000,000  gallons  daily  to  serve  1,200,000  people 
may  be  estimated  as  follow's: 


Estimated  cost  of  constructing  contact-filter  plant  and  appurtenances. 


Intercepting  sew’ers,  pumping  stations,  and  appurtenances,  including  a 

daily  capacity  of  340,000,000  gallons,  and  rising  mains . 

Septic  tanks,  60,000,000  gallons  capacity,  covered,  including  sludge,  dis¬ 
posal  facilities . 

Contract  filters,  300  acres,  wdth  all  piping,  appurtenances,  office,  laboratory, 

etc . 


§3,  300,  000 
950,  000 
6,  000,  000 


10,  250,  000 
1,  537,  500 


Contingencies  and  supervision,  15  per  cent 
Total . 


11,  787,  500 


110  INTERNATIONAL  WATERWAYS  COMMISSION  PROGRESS  REPORT. 

Annual  cost  of  operations. 


Pumping,  fuel,  labor,  and  repairs .  $200,  000 

Supervision,  analytical,  and  clerical  assistants .  30,  000 

Care  of  septic  tanks,  including  sludge  disposal .  36,  000 

Care  of  contact  filters .  260,  000 

Supplies  and  miscellaneous .  25,  000 


Total .  551,000 


Capitalizing  tlie  operating  expenses  at  5  per  cent  per  annum  there  is  obtained 
$11,020,000,  which  when  added  to  the  estimated  construction  cost  makes  a  total  sum 
of  $22,807,500  for  the  contact-filter  project. 

SPRINKLING  FILTERS. 

% 

Sprinkling  filters  differ  from  contact  filters  principally  in  the  method  of  application 
of  sewage,  which  in  our  northern  climates  is  discharged  upon  them  in  the  form  of  spray 
from  a  series  of  fixed  sprinkling  nozzdes  placed  about  12  to  15  feet  apart.  The  filters 
are  usually  deeper  and  of  somewhat  coarser  material  than  contact  filters. 

These  filters  also  are  an  English  adaptation  of  the  Lawrence  investigations  with 
gravel  filters  some  15  years  ago.  The  English  studies  began  at  Salford  in  1892  and 
have  resulted  in  the  adoption  of  this  form  of  filter  for  many  of  the  principal  cities  in 
England,  the  largest  of  which  is  the  metropolitan  district  of  Birmingham,  with  a 
population  of  over  900,000.  Some  of  these  filters  have  been  in  successful  practical 
operation  for  more  than  8  years.  On  the  Continent  this  method  is  being  adopted  for 
portions  of  the  suburbs  of  Paris  and  Berlin. 

In  this  country  this  method  has  been  studied  with  care  at  Lawrence,  Mass.;  Colum¬ 
bus,  Ohio;  Boston,  Mass.,  and  Waterbury,  Conn.  Filters  of  this  type  are  now  under 
construction  at  Columbus,  Ohio,  and  Reading,  Pa.  They  have  been  recently  adopted 
for  Baltimore ,  Md . ;  West  Chester,  Pa. ;  Washington,  Pa. ,  and  Waterbury,  Conn.  They 
have  been  recommended  for  use  also  at  Paterson,  N.  J. 

The  important  element  of  aeration  is  secured  in  sprinkling  filters  partly  by  applying 
the  liquid  as  a  spray  and  partly  through  the  use  of  coarse  material  with  voids  of  a  size, 
so  that  there  is  a  vertical  circulation  of  air  through  the  filtering  material  at  all  times. 

Suspended  mineral  and  organic  matters  and  some  of  the  dissolved  organic  matters 
are  retained  upon  the  surface  of  the  filtering  material  as  the  liquid  passes  in  thin  films 
over  the  surface  of  the  particles.  Bacterial  activities  reduce  the  organic  matter  to  a 
material  degree,  and  from  time  to  time  the  remaining  inert  material  cracks  and  peels 
and  passes  through  the  filter  bed  to  the  bottom.  In  order  to  be  able  to  remove  this 
accumulated  matter,  it  is  necessary  to  provide  false  bottoms  for  these  filters.  Filters 
of  this  type  have  been  in  successful  use  for  more  than  8  years  without  cleaning,  and 
it  is  believed  that  under  favorable  conditions  cleaning  is  not  required  oftener  than 
once  in  10  or  15  years. 

The  amount  of  suspended  matter  in  the  effluent  of  sprinkling  filters  due  to  this 
unloading  of  stored  material  is  sufficient  to  requme  passing  the  effluent  through  settling 
basins,  holding  about  two  hours’  flow,  before  discharging  into  the  nearest  water  course. 
The  settled  effluent,  of  satisfactory  appearance  and  with  its  organic  matter  so  reduced 
that  it  will  not  putrefy,  usually  contains  less  than  10  per  cent  of  the  bacteria  in  the 
crude  sewage. 

There  is  a  considerable  range  in  size  of  broken  stone  and  in  depth  of  material  as 
adopted  in  various  large  plants  now  built  or  building.  Avoiding  extremes,  it  may  be 
stated  that  the  depths  average  about  7  feet  and  the  size  of  material  ranges  from  about 
1  to  2^  inches,  mean  diameter.  We  have  assumed  these  figures  for  sprinkling  filters 
for  the  Galumet  area,  to  be  built  of  broken  stone  at  the  sites  already  mentioned  for 
contact  filters,  namely,  west  of  Harvey,  west  of  Hammond,  and  between  lakes  Calu¬ 
met  and  Wolf. 

We  have  carefully  considered  the  climatic  conditions  at  Chicago  and  compared  them 
with  temperatures  where  practical  experiences  with  sprinkling  filters  have  been 
obtained .  There  is  no  trouble  from  the  freezing  of  the  sprinkling  nozzles  through  which 
sewage  is  applied  under  a  head  of  6  or  7  feet.  During  zero  weather  some  frozen  sewage 
accumulates  on  the  surface  of  the  filter,  and  at  such  times  it  is  necessary  to  have  some 
reserve  area.  We  have  assumed  that  under  these  local  conditions  one  acre  of  sprink¬ 
ling  filters  should  be  provided  for  every  15,000  people  connected  with  the  sewers,  mak¬ 
ing  a  rate  ordinarily  of  about  2,250,000  gallons  per  acre  per  24  hours.  As  was  demon¬ 
strated  at  Columbus,  such  rates  for  several  weeks  at  a  time  may  be  doubled  and  still 
obtain  a  satisfactory  nonputrescible  effluent.  This  rate,  expressed  in  persons  served 


INTERNATIONAL  WATERWAYS  COMMISSION  PROGRESS  REPORT.  Ill 


per  acre-foot  of  sprinkling  filter  material,  is  only  about  one-half  of  that  provided  for  at 
Columbus,  Ohio,  and  one-third  of  that  in  several  plants  in  England. 

The  approximate  cost  of  building  and  operating  a  sprinkling  filter  ])lant  with  all 
needed  appurtenances,  of  a  capacity  of  1 80,000,000  gallons  daily,  to  serve  a  population 
of  1,200,000  may  be  estimated  as  follows: 

Estimated  cost  of  constructimj  sprinklina  filter  plant  and  appurtenances. 


Intercepting  sewers,  pumping  stations  and  appurtenances,  including  a 

daily  capacity  of  340,000,000  gallons,  and  rising  mains .  $3,  300,  000 

Septic  tanks,  00,000,000  gallons’  capacity,  covered,  including  sludge- 

disposal  facilities .  050,  000 

Sprinkling  filters,  80  acres,  with  all  a])})urtenances,  office,  laboratory,  etc . .  3,  GOO,  000 

Settling  basins,  15,000,000  gallons’  capacity .  200,  000 


8,  050,  000 

Contingencies  and  supervision,  15  per  cent .  1,  207,  500 

Total .  9,257,500 


Annual  cost  of  operation. 


Pumping,  fuel,  labor,  and  repairs . . .  $200,  000 

Supervision,  analytical  and  clerical  assistants .  30,  000 

Care  of  septic  and  settling  tanks,  including  sludge  disposal .  54,  000 

Care  of  sprinkling  filters . ■' .  110,  000 

Supplies  and  miscellanies .  25,  000 


Total .  419,000 


('apitalizing  the  operating  expenses  at  5  per  cent  per  annum,  there  is  obtained 
$8,380,000,  which  when  added  to  the  estimated  construction  cost  makes  a  total  sum  of 
$17,037,500  for  the  sprinkling  filter  project. 

CONCLUSION. 

In  recapitulating  the  substance  of  the  foregoing  inquiry  and  referring  specifically  to 
vour  instructions,  summarized  at  the  outset,  we  conclude  as  follows: 

1.  The  examination  into  the  sanitary  situation  at  Chicago,  so  far  as  it  is  affected  by 
sewage  disposal,  revealed  that  since  removing  the  sewage  through  the  drainage  canal 
the  appearance  of  the  water  of  the  Chicago  River  has  shown  marked  improvement. 
As  regards  the  hygienic  quality  of  the  public  water  supply  there  has  also  been  an 
improvement,  due  to  the  progressive  elimination  of  sewage  from  the  lake,  which 
elimination  should  be  completed  within  a  few  years. 

2.  The  latest  conclusions  of  sanitary  engineers  as  to  the  amount  of  dilution  which  is 
required  to  make  sewage  inoffensive  are  that  a  dilution  of  3^  cubic  feet  per  second  for 
each  1,000  persons  connected  with  the  sewers,  as  provided  for  in  the  enactment  of  the 
Illmois  Legislature  in  1889,  is  as  low  a  figure  as  it  is  now  possible  to  state.  We  believe 
that  with  the  elimination  of  objectionable  trade  wastes  and  the  occasional  dredging  of 
the  river  this  amount  of  dilution  will  be  sufficient  to  prevent  offensiveness. 

3.  The  extension  of  the  dilution  method  to  the  outlying  territory  is  not  the  only  way 
to  preserve  the  lives  and  health  of  the  people  of  Chicago.  The  application  of  this 
method  with  flows  of  10,000  and  14,000  cubic  feet  per  second,  respectively,  for  the  area 
tributary  to  the  present  drainage  canal  will  serve  populations  not  exceeding  3,000,000 
and  4,200,000,  respectively.  For  greater  populations  other  methods  of  sewage  dis¬ 
posal  will  be  required. 

4.  For  the  Calumet  area,  as  well  as  other  districts,  there  are  several  methods  for  the 
disposal  of  sewage  as  effective  as  the  present  method  of  dilution  in  preventing  the 
pollution  of  the  lake  waters. 

5.  All  of  these  methods  involve  intercepting  sewers  and  pumping  stations  to  collect 
and  deliver  the  sewage  at  suitable  sites.  Septic  tanks  are  used  for  partially  clarifying 
the  sewage,  which  may  then  be  applied  to  any  one  of  three  methods  of  filters,  viz, 
intermittent  sand  filters,  contact  filters,  and  sprinkling  filters. 

All  of  these  filters,  if  well  built  and  well  managed,  remove  the  suspended  and  organic 
matters  so  that  the  effluents  are  practically  clear  and  are  nonputrescible.  The  removal 
of  bacteria  by  these  three  types  of  filters  averages  at  least  98,  80,  and  90  per  cent, 
respectively.  Suc*h  effluents  may  be  discharged  directly  into  any  of  the  watercourses 
of  the  Calumet  region. 


112  INTERNATIONAL  WATERWAYS  COMMISSION  PROGRESS  REPORT. 


6.  The  approximate  total  costs,  liberally  estimated,  without  the  preparation  of 
detailed  plans,  for  a  population  of  1,200,000  are  as  follows: 

A. — Intermittent  sand  filters. 


Construction .  $11,063,000 

Annual  cost  of  operation,  $866,000,  capitalized  at  5  per  cent .  17,  320,  000 

28,  383,  000 

B. — Contact  filters. 

Construction . $11^  787^  500 

Annual  cost  of  operation,  $551,000,  capitalized  at  5  per  cent .  11,  020,  000 


22,  807,  500 


C. — Sprinkling  filters. 

Construction .  |9^  257,  500 

Annual  cost  of  operation,  $419,000,  capitalized  at  5  per  cent .  8,  380,  000 


17,  637,  500 

The  present  population  on  the  Calumet  area  of  the  sanitary  district  being  less  than 
200,000  would  naturally  require  but  a  portion  of  the  cost  of  estimated  works  and  of 
their  operation  to  be  expended  at  the  outset. 

Of  the  available  methods  of  disposing  of  the  sewage  of  the  Calumet  area,  other  than 
by  dilution,  the  sprinkling  fdter  method,  being  the  cheapest,  both  in  cost  of  construc¬ 
tion  and  of  operation,  and  accomplishing  an  adequate  degree  of  purification,  is  clearly 
the  most  advantageous  one. 

Very  respectfully,  Kudolph  Hering. 

George  W.  Fuller. 


Appendix  K, 

Report  of  the  International  Waterways  Commission  on  the  Location  of 
THE  Boundary  Line  Between  the  United  States  and  Canada  Through 
Lake  Erie. 

•  Toronto,  January  4,  1907. 

This  matter  comes  before  the  International  Waterways  Commission  by  indorse¬ 
ment  of  the  Secretary  of  War  dated  September  10,  1906,  referring  letters  of  the  Acting 
Secretary  of  State  dated  September  5,  1906,  and  September  7,  1906,  respectively. 
The  subject  matter  referred  is  set  forth  in  the  letter  of  the  Acting  Secretary  of  State, 
dated  September  5,  which,  after  stating  that  the  commander  of  the  Canadian  cruiser 
Vigilant  had  made  a  proposition  to  log  and  mark  by  buoys  the  exact  international 
water  boundary  line  on  Lake  Erie,  thereby  enabling  fishermen  to  keep  on  their  side 
of  the  line,_  and  that  difference  of  opinion  exists  between  interested  parties  as  to  the 
exact  location  of  the  boundary  line,  asks  that  the  matter  be  referred  to  this  commis¬ 
sion  with  the  inquiry  whether  it  is  known  that  the  American  and  Canadian  charts  of 
the  locality  agree  as  to  the  distance  to  be  logged  from  the  gas  buoy  at  Erie  to  the 
boundary  on  the  usual  fishing  ground. 

After  most  diligent  research  the  commission  has  been  unable  to  discover  any 
authoritative  description,  map,  or  chart,  American  or  British,  from  which  the  location 
of  the  boundary  line  on  Lake  Erie  can  be  determined  and  laid  down  on  modern  charts, 
satisfactorily,  except  from  a  point  southeast  of  ^liddle  Island  to  the  mouth  of  Detroit 
River,  and  from  a  point  near  the  mouth  of  Niagara  River  northerly. 

The  sixth  article  of  the  treaty  of  Ghent,  after  stating  that  by  the  former 
treaty  of  peace  the  boundary  line  from  the  point  where  the  forty-fifth  degree 
of  north  latitude  meets  the  St.  Lawrence  River  to  Lake  Superior,  was  declared 
to  be  “along  the  middle  of  said  river  into  Lake  Ontario,  through  the  middle  of  said  lake 
until  it  strikes  the  Communication  by  water  between  that  lake  and  Lake  Erie,  thence 
along  the-  middle  of  said  communication  into  Lake  Erie,  through  the  middle  of  said 
lake  until  it  arrives  at  the  water  communication  into  Lake  Huron,  thence  through  the 
middle  of  said  lake  to  the  water  communication  between  that  lake  and  Lake  Superior,” 
and  after  stating  that  doubts  have  arisen  as  to  “what  was  the  middle  of  said  river,  lakes, 
and  water  communications,  and  whether  certain  islands  lying  in  the  same  were  within 
the  dominion  of  His  Britannic  Majesty  or  the  United  States,”  provides  for  a  reference 


INTERNATIONAL  WATERWAYS  COMMISSION  PROGRESS  REPORT.  IIS 


of  the  matter  to  two  commissioners  who  are  instnicted  by  the  article  to  designate,  by  a 
reT)ort  or  declaration  under  their  hands  and  seals,  the  boundary  through  the  said  river, 
lakes,  and  water  communications  and  to  decide  what  islands  belong  to  each  of  the  con¬ 
tracting  parties,  it  being  provided  that  the  decision  of  the  commissioners  should  be 
final  and  conclusive.  The  treaty  referred  to  in  this  article  is  that  concluded  in  the 
year  1783.  By  Article  II  of  that  treaty  the  boundary  line  of  the  St.  Lawrence  system 
is  described  as  commencing  at  a  point  where  the  forty-fifth  degree  of  north  latitude 
meets  the  St.  Lawrence  River,  thence  through  the  middle  of  that  river  and  through 
the  middle  of  Lake  Ontario,  the  middle  of  the  water  communication  between  Lake 
Erie  and  I^ake  Ontario,  to  the  middle  of  Lake  Erie,  the  middle  of  the  water  commu¬ 
nication  between  Lake  Erie,  and  Lake  Huron,  the  middle  of  Lake  Huron  to  the  water 
communication  between  that  lake  and  Lake  Superior,  thence  through  Lake  Superior 
northward  of  the  Isles  Royal  and  Phelipeaux  to  the  Long  Lake.  From  this  it  follows 
that  the  commissioners  were  appointed  to  determine  the  middle  line  of  all  waters 
between  the  east  end  of  Lake  Superior  and  the  junction  of  the  forty-fifth  degree  of 
north  latitude  with  the  middle  line  of  the  St.  Lawrence  River,  in  accordance  with  the 
true  meaning  of  the  treaty  of  1783. 

The  commissioners  were  appointed,  and  by  a  report  dated  June  18,  1822,  they 
described  the  boundary  line.  The  description  is  no  more  definite,  so  far  as  the  Great 
Lakes  are  concerned,  than  was  the  treaty  of  1783  (except  in  Lake  Erie  west  of  Middle 
Island),  and  a  similar  de.scription  to  that  in  the  treaty  is  adopted  in  the  report  of  the 
commissioners  when  describing  the  boundary  line  in  those  lakes.  It  is  impossible 
from  the  reports  to  lay  down  with  accuracy  the  boundary  line  in  any  of  the  waters 
covered  by  it.  The  commissioners  appear  to  have  ended  their  labors  at  the  foot  of 
Neebish  Rapids  in  St.  Marys  River,  not  agreeing  as  to  which  channel  the  line  should 
follow  going  north  from  that  point.  However,  they  filed  a  map  showing  the  line  from 
a  point  near  the  head  of  Sugar  Island  through  the  river  to  a  point  opposite  Gros  Cap 
and  Point  Iroquois,  the  east  end  of  Lake  Superior.  In  their  report  they  state  that  the 
boundary  line  as  determined  by  them  “is  more  clearly  indicated  in  a  series  of  maps 
accompanying  their  report,  exhibiting  a  correct  survey  and  delineation  of  all  the  river, 
lakes,  water  communications,  and  islands  embraced  by  the  sixth  article  of  the  treaty  of 
Ghent,  by  a  black  line  shaded  on  the  British  side  with  red  and  on  the  American  side 
with  blue  and  each  sheet  of  which  series  of  maps  is  identified  by  a  certificate  subscribed 
by  the  commissioners  and  by  the  two  principal  surveyors  employed  by  them.” 

The  commissioners,  as  stated  in  their  report,  prepared  certain  maps  to  accompany 
it,  which  it  is  understood  were  filed  in  London  and  in  the  office  of  the  Secretary  of 
State  at  Washington  with  quadruplicate  reports.  The  records  of  the  Secretary  of  State 
at  Washington  disclose  maps,  properly  authenticated  by  the  commissioners  and  the 
surveyors,  showing  the  boundary  line  through  the  St.  Lawrence  River  and  as  far  as  a 
point  near  and  southwesterly  from  Duck  Islands  in  Lake  Ontario,  through  Niagara 
River  to  a  point  in  the  nortfieasterly  end  of  Lake  Erie  about  north  of  the  mouth  of 
Buffalo  Creek,  in  the  city  of  Buffalo;  from  a  point  near  and  southeasterly  from  Middle 
Island,  at  the  southwest  end  of  Lake  Erie,  to  the  mouth  of  the  Detroit  River,  through  the 
Detroit  River,  through  Lake  St.  Clair  and  the  St.  Clair  River  to  Lake  Huron,  and 
through  Lake  Huron  to  and  into  St.  Marys  River  as  far  as  the  foot  of  Neebish  Rapids; 
also  from  a  point  about  a  mile  above  Sugar  Island  through  the  river  to  a  point  opposite 
Point  Iroquois  in  Lake  Superior.  There  are  on  file  in  the  office  of  the  Secretary  of 
State  of  the  United  States  unauthenticated  maps  showing  what  purports  to  be  the 
boundary  line  through  Lakes  Onatrio  and  Erie.  This  commission  has  not  had  an 
opportunity  to  consult  the  maps  filed  in  I>ondon  by  the  commissioners  appointed  under 
the  treaty,  but  historical  research  indicates  that  there  was  no  map  of  the  boundary  line 
in  I^ake  Ontario  from  near  Duck  Islands  to  the  mouth  of  the  Niagara  River,  and  no  map 
of  the  boundary  line  in  Lake  Erie  from  about  opposite  the  city  of  Buffalo  to  a  point 
near  and  southeast  of  Middle  Island,  authenticated  by  the  commissioners  appointed 
under  the  treaty  of  Ghent;  and  it  is  clear  that  the  commissioners  did  not  agree  upon 
the  boundary  Ime  through  Lake  Superior,  nor  through  the  St.  Marys  River  from  the 
foot  of  Neebish  Rapids  to  a  point  near  the  head  of  Sugar  Island.  The  maps  of  Lakes 
Huron,  St.  Clair,  and  Superior  are  authenticated  by  the  commissioners,  but  are  so 
inaccurate  that  they  are  useless  for  the  purpose  of  accurately  determining  the  location 
of  the  boundary  lines  on  them. 

By  the  treaty  of  Washington,  ratified  in  1842,  Article  II,  the  boundary  line  from  the 
point  where  the  commissioners  under  the  treaty  of  Ghent  ceased  their  labors,  viz,  at 
the  foot  of  Neebish  Rapids,  through  St.  Marys  River  and  Lake  Superior  to  Pigeon 
River,  at  the  westerly  end  of  the  lake,  was  described.  In  this  article  maps  of  St.  Marys 
River  and  Lake  Superior  are  referred  to  as  made  by  the  commissioners  under  the  treaty 
of  Ghent  and  as  having  traced  on  them  part  of  the  boundary  line  in  St.  Marys  River 

S.  Doc.  959-62-3 - 8 


114  INTERNATIONAL  WATERWAYS  COMMISSION  PROGRESS  REPORT. 


and  the  boundary  line  in  Lake  Superior  to  a  point  north  of  Isle  Royal.  These  maps 
were  made  by  the  commissioners  pursuant  to  Article  VII  of  the  treaty  of  Ghent. 

Reference  to  the  records  in  the  office  of  the  Secretary  of  State  discloses  maps  of  the 
boundary  line  described  in  the  treaty  of  Washington,  certified  by  the  commissioners 
appointed  under  the  treaty  of  Ghent  and  by  Daniel  Webster,  Secretary  of  State  of 
the  United  States,  and  Lord  Ashburton,  Minister  Plenipotentiary  of  Her  Majesty  the 
Queen  of  the  United  Kingdom  of  Great  Britain  and  Ireland,  who  negotiated  and 
signed  the  treaty.  These  maps  show  the  boundary  line  from  the  head  of  Muddy  Lake 
(now  known  as  “Mud”  Lake)  through  the  St.  Marys  River  to  a  point  about  a  mile 
above  the  head  of  Sugar  Island,  and  from  opposite  Point  Iroquios  through  Lake 
Superior  to  the  Pigeon  River. 

As  the  office  of  the  Secretary  of  State  of  the  United  States  is  the  only  proper  place  in 
the  United  States  for  deposit  of  the  report  and  maps  prepared  by  the  commissioners 
appointed  under  the  provisions  of  the  treaty  of  Ghent,  the  commission  concludes  that 
there  is  no  authoritative  delineation  of  the  boundary  line  through  I.ake  Erie  in  exist¬ 
ence  unless  a  properly  certified  map  was  filed  in  London  by  the  commissioners  and  is 
to  be  found  there  now.  The  commission  would,  however,  suggest  that  as  the  dimen¬ 
sions  of  the  Great  Lakes  and  the  contour  of  their  shores  had  not  been  ascertained  with 
any  accuracy  at  the  time  the  commissioners  appointed  under  the  treaty  of  Ghent  acted, 
it  is  highly  improbable  that  any  map  prepared  by  them  would  be  sufficient  for  the 
purpose  of  laying  down  the  boundary  line  on  modern  charts.  The  map  of  Lake  Erie 
on  file  in  the  office  of  the  Secretary  of  State  is  an  illustration.  It  plainly  discloses  that 
the  dimensions  of  that  lake  and  the  contour  of  its  shores  were  not  known  at  the  time  it 
was. prepared,  for  the  lake  itself  appears  on  the  map  to  be  about  18  miles  too  long  and 
in  one  place  to  be  about  16  miles  wider  than  it  actually  is.  with  an  average  excess 
width  of  about  6^  miles;  that  is,  its  dimensions  are  so  distorted  that  the  location  of  the 
boundary  line  delineated  upon  it  can  not  be  accurately  ascertained  and  can  not  be  laid 
down  upon  modern  charts  without  proceeding  upon  suppositions  upon  which  it  would 
be  difficult  or  impossible  to  secure  agreement  by  different  engineers.  The  inaccuracy 
of  this  map  is  illustrated  further  hereafter. 

There  are  in  existence  two  official  maps  of  Lake  Erie  which  show  a  boundary  line. 
These  are  a  chart  prepared  by  the  British  Admiralty  and  a  chart  prepared  by  the 
Hydrographic  Office,  Bureau  of  Navigation,  Department  of  the  Navy  of  the  United 
States.  The  boundary  lines  as  laid  down  upon  these  maps  vary  greatly  from  each 
other,  and  neither  one  is  so  far  authoritative  as  to  be  binding  upon  the  United  States  and 
the  Dominion  of  Canada.  The  British  Admiralty  map  is  projected  upon  the  polyconic 
system,  the  scale  being  1  to  400000  approximately,  the  hydrographic  chart  being  laid 
down  on  Mercator’s  projection. 

The  difficulty  in  ascertaining  the  exact  location  of  the  boundary  on  Lake  Erie  from 
a  point  opposite  Buffalo  to  the  point  near  Middle  Island  arises  from  the  language  of  the 
treaties  of  1783  and  1814,  as  well  as  the  language  adopted  in  their  report  by  the  com¬ 
missioners  appointed  under  the  latter  treaty. 

All  these  instruments  define  the  boundary  line  as  passing  through  “the  middle”  of 
the  lake.  The  expression  used  is  subject  to  various  interpretations: 

It  may  mean — 

(а)  A  line  being  at  all  points  equally  distant  from  each  shore. 

(б)  A  line  following  the  general  lines  of  the  shores  and  dividing  the  surface  water 
area  as  nearly  as  practicable  into  two  equal  parts. 

(c)  A  line  along  the  midchannel  dividing  the  navigable  portion  of  the  lake,  and 
being  at  all  points  equally  distant  from  the  shoal  water  on  each  shore. 

It  is  to  be  observed  that  if  the  second  interpretation  above  mentioned  be  adopted 
as  governing  the  location  of  the  boundary  line,  a  question  will  arise,  probably  capable 
of  being  adjusted  by  compromise,  as  to  how  far  the  location  of  a  line  “following  the 
general  lines  of  the  shores”  would  be  affected  by  the  projection  known  as  Long  Point. 

It  is  also  to  be  observed  that  it  may  be  possible  to  establish  a  line  which  would  not 
greatly  differ  from  the  lines  which  would  result  from  the  adoption  of  any  of  the  above- 
suggested  interpretations  and  which  would  consist  of  the  fewest  possible  number  of 
straight  lines.  The  great  advantage  of  such  a  boundary  is  manifest  as  enabling  fish¬ 
ermen  and  navigators  to  locate  it  with  accuracy. 

A  line  can  be  delineated  upon  modern  charts,  by  agreement  between  the  United 
States  and  Great  Britain,  so  as  to  carry  out  the  spirit  of  the  treaties  of  1783  and  1814, 
accomplish  a  just  division  of  the  lake,  and  present  a  practical  boundary  consisting  of 
a  few  straight  lines,  the  location  of  which  at  any  point  can  be  accurately  ascertained 
when  necessary,  and  which  will  not  be  confusing  to  fishermen  or  navigators.  In  the 
opinion  of  the  commission  such  a  boundary  is  the  proper  one,  but  no  engineer  can 
project  it  upon  modern  charts  until  it  has  been  settled  by  a  joint  commission,  inas¬ 
much  as  it  is  possible  to  place  several  lines  upon  a  modern  chart,  differing  very  con- 
eiderably  from  each  other. 


INTERNATIONAL  WATERWAYS  COMMISSION  PROGRESS  REPORT.  115 


Accurate  charts  of  the  Great  laikes,  ])rojecte(l  on  the  ])olyconic  system  u])()n  a  scale 
of  1  to  400,000,  have  been  issued  by  the  l.’nited  States  Lake  Survey,  and  the  commis¬ 
sion,  for  the  ])uriK)se  of  illustrating  the  dilliculties  in  the  way  of  ascertaining  and 
delineating  the  boundary  line  on  Lake  Erie,  has  caused  that  line  as  laid  down  by  the 
British  Admiralty,  together  with  the  line  as  delineated  by  the  Hydrographic  Survey 
Ollice,  to  be  drawn  on  the  Lake  Survey  chart  which  accompanies  this  re])ort  and  ia 
marked  “A.” 

To  illustrate  the  absolute  unreliability  and  inaccuracy  of  the  ma])  of  Lake  Erie  on 
fde  in  the  ollice  of  the  Secretary  of  State  of  the  United  States,  the  commission  has 
prepared  a  copy  thereof  u])on  a  reduced  scale,  which,  by  super])ositi()n  u])on  the 
chart  marked  “A,”  will  disclose  the  distortion  of  the  lake’s  dimejisions  and  the  impos¬ 
sibility  of  reproducing  upon  the  Lake  Survey  chart  the  boundary  line  as  it  a'|)pears 
on  that  map.  This  reduced  ma])  accom])anies  our  report  and  is  marked  “  B.”  It  is 
])rojected  upon  the  same  system  and  as  nearly  as  ])ossible  u])on  the  same  scale  as  chart, 
A.  Map  B  discloses  that  at  the  time  it  was  made  the  contour  of  the  south  shore  of 
Lake  Erie  was  ])retty  accurately  known,  but  that  knowledge  of  the  north  shore  was 
very  general,  for,  by  placing  map  B  on  chart  A,  the  south  shore  line  can  be  made  to 
very  nearly  correspond,  but,  this  being  done,  the  north  shore  line  ap])eoTs  greatly  out 
of  ])lace.  "The  southwest  end  of  Lake  Erie  was  surveyed  by  the  commissioners 
appointed  under  the  treaty  of  Ghent  and  consequently  ap])roaches  correctness,  but 
the  boundary  line  at  that  end  of  the  lake  as  delineated  on  the  filed  map  of  the  entire 
lake  can  not  be  made  to  correspond  with  that  on  the  certified  map  of  the  southwest 
end.  The  map  of  the  entire  lake  is  in  fact  utterly  worthless  and  can  not  be  used  for 
the  purpose  of  locating  the  boundary  on  chart  A. 

Gomparison  of  the  hydrographic  and  British  Admiralty  boundary  lines,  laid  down 
upon  their  respective  charts  as  transferred  to  the  laike  Survey  chart,  shows  very  great 
discrepancies;  they  cross  and  recross  each  other,  disclosing  in  some  places  conflicting 
jurisdiction  and  in  other  places  what  a])pears  to  be  neutral  territory,  over  which 
neither  country  would  have  jurisdiction.  In  one  place,  southeast  of  Long  Point,  the 
line  on  the  hydrographic  chart  is  about  8  miles  farther  north  than  on  the  British 
Admiralty  chart,  showing  conflicting  jurisdiction,  while  at  another  point,  southwest 
of  Long  Point,  there  is  quite  a  long  space  between  the  lines,  the  hydrographic 
line  being  about  2  miles  south  of  the  British  Admiralty  at  the  widest  point,  thus 
apparently  leaving  a  very  considerable  area  not  within  the  jurisdiction  of  either 
country.  If  we  superpose  ma])  B  on  chart  Awe  find  still  further  confusioji,  inasmuch 
as  the  shore  line  (ff  Lake  Erie  as  shown  on  map  B  can  not  be  made  to  correspond  with 
the  shore  line  on  chart  A.  No  engineer  is  ca])able  of  reconciling  these  different  lines 
u])on  any  theory  ])resented  by  the  descri])tion  in  the  treaty  of  1783,  or  by  the  treaty  of 
Ghent,  or  by-  the  report  of  the  commissioners  ap])ointed  under  the  last-named  treaty, 
as  those  descriptions  simply  place  the  boundary  line  in  “the  middle”  of  the  lake. 
Interpretations  of  these  descriptions  by  engineers  will  vary  in  accordance  with  the 
theories  which  they  may  adopL 

All  the  authentic  maps  of  the  lakes  and  the  water  communications  between  thern  and 
of  the  St.  Lawrence  are  subject  to  the  general  criticism,  that  while  most  of  the  rivers 
were  surveyed  and  an  attempt  was  made  to  lay  down  the  boundary  line  on  them  and 
on  the  lakes,  the  maps  do  not  represent  present  conditions  with  sufficient  accuracy 
to  prevent  serious  disagreement  between  surveyors  who  might  attempt  to  delineate 
the  boundary  line  on  modern  ond  accurate  charts,  and  the  lines  surveyed  were  not 
sufficiently  marked. 

CONCLUSIONS. 

The  commission  therefore  concludes: 

1.  That  the  international  boundary  line  on  Lake  Erie  can  not  be  ascertained  with 
anv  accuracy  from  existing  data. 

2.  That  the  American  and  Canadian  charts  of  Lake  Erie— namely,  the  hydrographic 
and  British  Admiralty  charts — do  not  agree  as  to  distance  to  be  logged  from  the  gas 
buoy  at  Erie  to  the  boundary  line  on  the  usual  fishing  ground. 

RECOMMENDATIONS. 

The  commission  would  respectfully  recommend: 

1.  That  the  entire  boundary  line  from  the  point  where  the  forty-fifth  parallel  of 
north  latitude  meets  the  middle  of  the  St.  Lawrence  River,  thrciugh  that  river,  the 
Great  Lakes  and  connecting  waters,  in  accordance  with  the  true  intent  and  meaning 
of  the  treaties  of  1783,  1814,  and  1842,  be  located  to  accord  as  nearly  as  possible  with 
the  lines  fixed  by  the  commissioners  appointed  under  the  treaty  of  Ghent  and  the 
treaty  of  1842,  to  be  delineated  upon  modern  charts,  and  be  so  described  by  reference 


116  INTERNATIONAL  WATERWAYS  COMMISSION  PROGRESS  REPORT. 


to  fixed  monuments,  where  necessary,  that  it  can  in  the  future  be  relocated  at  any 
given  point  by  survey. 

2.  That  the  location,  delineation  on  modern  charts,  and  monumenting  of  the 
boundary  line  proceed  under  the  direction  of  this  commission  or  another  inteniational 
commission  to  be  appointed,  and  that  when  it  is  located,  laid  dowTi  on  modern  charts, 
and  monumented,  it  be  finally  fixed  and  determined  by  treaty  accordingly. 

8.  That  this  commission  be  authorized  to  locate,  lay  down  upon  a  modern  chart, 
and  monument  the  boundary  line  through  Lake  Erie. 

All  of  which  is  res])ectfully  submitted. 

0.  H.  Ernst, 

Brigadier  General,  U.  S.  Army,  Retired, 

Chairman,  American  Section. 

George  Clinton, 
Member,  American  Section . 

E.  E.  Haskell, 

Member,  American  Section. 

Geo.  C.  Gibbons, 
Chairman,  Canadian  Section. 

W.  F.  King, 

Member,  Canadian  Section. 

Louis  Coste, 

Member,  Canadian  Section. 

The  honorable  the  Secretary  of  War  of  the  United  States,  and 

The  honorable  the  Minister  of  Public  Works  op  the  Dominion  of  Canada. 


Appendix  L. 

Report  upon  the  Application  of  the  Cedars  Rapids  Manufacturing  &  Power 

Co.  FOR  Permission  to  Build  Power  Works  in  the  St.  Lawrence  River  at 

Cedars,  in  the  County  of  Soulanges,  by  the  Commission,  April  13,  1909. 

The  honorable  the  Minister  of  Public  Works,  ^ 

Ottawa,  Ontario. 

Sir:  The  application  of  the  Cedars  Rapids  Manufacturing  &  Power  Co.  for  permis¬ 
sion  to  build  works  in  the  St.  Lawrence  River  at  Cedars,  in  the  county  of  Soulanges, 
for  the  purpose  of  developing  electric  power,  was  referred  to  the  International  Water¬ 
ways  Commission  by  the  secretary  of  the  department  of  public  works  on  the  18th  of 
December  last,  with  all  papers  relating  to  it. 

An  examination  of  the  papers  in  question  shows  that  on  January  6,  1906,  the  Gov¬ 
ernor  General  in  council  approved  the  project  of  the  company,  subject  to  the  passing 
of  an  agreement  between  the  company  and  the  department  of  public  works,  so  as  not 
to  impede  or  interfere  with  the  navigation  of  the  St.  Lawrence  River,  and  in  which 
the  company  will  bind  itself  to  construct  and  maintain  all  other  works,  which  in  the 
opinion  of  the  minister  of  public  works,  or  of  any  engineer  appointed  by  the  minister, 
may  be  deemed  necessary  to  restore  navigation  on  the  St.  Lawrence  River  in  the 
Cedars  Rapids,  should  navigation  be  injuriously  affected  by  the  works  of  the  company. 

The  agreement  in  question  was  prepared  by  the  law  clerk  of  the  department  of 
public  works  in  1906,  pursuant  to  the  order  in  council  of  the  6th  of  January,  and  was 
sent  to  the  company  during  that  year,  but  it  was  not  executed  by  the  company, 
presumably  because  the  company  was  not  ready  to  undertake  the  works  at  that  time. 

Nothing  further  was  done  in  connection  with  this  matter  until  October,  1908,  when 
the  solicitors  of  the  company  forwarded  the  draft  of  the  agreement  to  the  department 
of  public  works,  stating  that,  with  a  few  minor  changes  therein,  the  company  was 
prepared  to  execute  this  contract. 

Shortly  afterwards,  in  December,  the  departmental  file  was  referred  to  the  Inter¬ 
national  Waterways  Commission  for  its  attention. 

The  commission,  as  a  whole,  understands  that  the  reference  was  made  with  a  view 
of  obtaining  its  opinion  as  to  whether  or  not  the  project  outlined  by  the  company  in 
the  plan  submitted  to  the  department  of  public  works  would  interfere  with  navigation, 
and  in  the  event  of  interference,  whether  or  not  the  agreement  proposed  to  be  executed 
between  the  company  and  the  department  is  such  as  to  safeguard  the  interests  of 
navigation. 

No  detailed  plans  of  the  works  have  been  submitted,  and  only  the  mpst  general 
nformation  concerning  the  topography  and  hydrography  of  the  locality  is  at  hand. 


INTERNATIONAL  WATERWAYS  COMMISSION  PROGRESS  REPORT.  117 


The  commission  is  unable  to  form  opinions  in  detail  as  to  the  effect  of  the  works,  but 
it  does  not  consider  that  fact  a  valid  reason  for  reporting  adversely  to  the  scheme  as 
outlined.  It  assumes  that  detailed  plans  will  be  submitted  in  due  season  to  the 
minister  of  public  works.  It  is  of  the  opinion  that  with  such  plans  the  scheme  can  be 
carried  out  under  the  agreement  between  the  company  and  the  Government,  a  copy 
of  which  was  laid  before  (he  commission,  without  detriment  to  navigation,  except 
possibly  raft  navigation.  To  safeguard  the  latter,  it  would  suggest  that  a  clause  l)e 
added  to  the  agreement,  providing  that  if  it  be  found  necessary,  in  the  opinion  of  the 
minister  of  public  works,  to  pass  the  rafts  through  the  power  canal,  the  rafts  shall 
have  that  right,  and  a  proper  slide  shall  be  provided  at  the  lower  end  of  the  canal. 

The  commission  also  suggests  that  the  agreement  be  not  executed  until  the  company 
shall  give  proper  assurance  of  its  ability,  financially  and  otherwise,  to  commence  and 
complete  their  works  within  a  specified  time,  and  comply  with  all  the  terms  of  the 
agreement  in  every  respect. 

Respectfully  submitted. 

Geo.  C.  Gibbons, 
Chairman^  Canadian  Section. 

O.  If.  Ernst, 

Chairman,  American  Section. 

George  ('linton. 
Member,  American  Section. 

Louis  Coste. 

Wm.  J.  Stewart. 

E.  E.  Haskell, 

Member,  American  Section. 

Toronto,  Ontario,  April  13,  1909. 


Appendix  M. 

Report  upon  the  Application  of  the  Long  Sault  Development  Co.  for 

Legislation  to  Authorize  the  Construction  of  Power  Works  in  the  St. 

Lawrence  River,  near  Long  Sault  Island,  by  the  American  Members, 

March  11,  1910. 

Buffalo,  N.  Y.,  March  11,  1910. 

Hon.  D.  S.  Alexander, 

Chairman,  Committee  on  Rivers  and  Harbors, 

House  of  Representatives,  Washinaton,  D.  C. 

Sir:  The  x\merican  members  of  the  International  Waterways  Commission  have 
the  honor  to  acknowledge  the  receipt  of  your  letter  of  December  24,  1909,  transmitting 
a  copy  of  H.  R.  14531,  a  bill  now  before  Congress,  and  requesting  the  views  thereon 
of  the  International  Waterways  Commission.  Your  letter  was  laid  before  the  com¬ 
mission  at  its  meeting  in  Buffalo  on  the  8th  of  January,  1910,  but  no  action  was  taken, 
the  Canadian  members  desiring  further  time  for  consideration,  and  particularly  time 
enough  to  hold  a  public  hearing  in  Canada.  This  public  hearing  was  held  at  Toronto 
on  the  8th  and  9th  of  February,  1910,  but  again  the  Canadian  members  desired  time 
for  further  consideration,  and  action  was  deferred  until  the  next  meeting.  At  a  meet¬ 
ing  held  in  Buffalo  to-day  the  subject  was  again  considered,  but  the  Canadian  mern- 
bers  were  still  not  prepared  to  join  in  a  report.  The  American  members  feel  that  if 
the  report  is  to  be  of  any  use  to  your  committee  at  the  present  session  of  Congress  it 
must  be  submitted  without  further  delay,  and  they  therefor  submit  their  own  views 
at  this  time,  not  without  hope  that  the  full  commission  may  be  able  to  concur  in  a 
joint  report  hereafter. 

The  bill  authorizes  the  Long  Sault  Development  Co.,  a  corporation  organized  under 
the  laws  of  the  State  of  New  York,  to  construct  certain  dams,  locks,  canals,  and  other 
structures  in  the  St.  I^awrence  River  near  Long  Sault  Island.  ^  We  have  obtained  from 
the  company  an  outline  of  their  plans.  In  cooperation  with  a  Canadian  corpora¬ 
tion — the  St.  Lawrence  River  Power  Co. — it  is  proposed  to  construct  a  dam  from  the 
American  shore  to  Long  Sault  Island,  another  dam  from  the  foot  of  Long  Sault  Island 
to  Barnhart  Island,  and  another  from  Barnhart  Island  to  the  Canadian  shore,  thus 
damming  the  entire  river  and  making  ail  of  its  surplus  waters  available  for  power 
purposes.  Locks  are  to  be  introduced,  and  the  open  navigation  of  the  rapids,  which 
IS  now  available  only  for  a  part  of  the  do^vnstream  traffic,  will  be  changed  to  slack- 
water  navigation,  which  will  be  available  for  all  traffic,  whether  upstream  or  down¬ 
stream.  It  is  entirely  possible  that  a  scheme  of  this  kind,  if  carried  out  under  proper 
Government  control,  would  be  of  great  advantage  to  both  the  United  States  and 


118  INTERNATIONAL  WATERWAYS  COMMISSION  PROGRESS  REPORT. 


Canada.  Under  proper  plans  the  navigation  of  the  river  might  be  much  improved, 
while  a  large  amount  of  cheap  power  would  be  created  and  made  available  for  use  on 
either  side  of  the  boundary. 

The  St.  Lawrence  River  is  a  great  commercial  highway,  the  importance  of  which  is 
increasing  with  the  growth  of  the  country  tributary  to  it.  At  various  places  the  river 
is  obstructed  by  rapids,  as  at  Long  Sault  Island,  and  at  these  places  lateral  canals  have 
been  constructed  ])y  the  Canadian  Government  through  which  the  principal  traffic 
of  the  river  passes,  a  few  passenger  steamers  using  the  open  river  on  their  downstream 
trips.  As  the  country  has  developed  and  as  the  economical  size  of  vessels  has  increased 
the  facilities  offered  by  these  canals  have  become  less  and  less  adequate,  A  demand 
for  improved  facilities  already  exists  and  is  sure  to  grow.  Probably  the  best  way  to 
secure  the  wnde  and  deep  channels  required  is  to  canalize  the  open  river,  and  inci¬ 
dentally  this  method  of  improvement  gives  an  opportunity  to  develop  an  important 
water  power.  Where  both  banks  of  the  river  are  under  one  jurisdiction,  as  in  the 
lower  St.  Lawrence,  the  difficulties  to  be  encountered  are  purely  engineering  difficul¬ 
ties.  Where  the  river  constitutes  a  part  of  the  international  boundary,  as  at  Long 
Sault  Island,  there  are  also  political  difficulties. 

In  either  case  the  primary  object  of  damming  the  river  should  be  the  improvement 
of  navigation.  The  levels  of  the  pools  and  the  height  and  location  of  the  dams  should 
be  fixed  with  that  purpose  in  view,  the  development  of  power  being  incidental  and 
secondary.  And  it  follows  that  the  Government  must  have  such  control  of  the  works 
after  their  completion  as  shall  insure  their  permanency  and  their  proper  manipulation 
in  the  interest  of  navigation.  Its  control  must  be  so  complete  that  it  may  be  doubted 
whether  it  can  be  secured  without  actual  ownership. 

It  is  in  the  interest  of  civilization  that  the  St.  Lawrence  River,  where  it  forms  part 
of  the  international  boundary,  should  not  go  undeveloped,  either  for  navigation  or 
power.  If  the  two  Governments  could  unite  in  a  scheme  for  canalizing  it  at  public 
expense,  the  problem  would  be  solved  in  the  most  satisfactory  way.  No  such 
scheme  is  before  us,  and  it  does  not  seem  probable  that  the  United  States  Govemment 
having  in  view  the  more  pressing  demands  upon  its  Treasury  for  the  improvement  of 
its  navigable  waterways,  will  in  the  near  future  be  prepared  to  join  in  canalizing  the 
St.  Lawrence.  If  the  St.  Lawrence  is  to  be  improved  within  the  present  generation, 
it  seems  to  us  that  it  must  be  done  either  by  the  Canadian  Government  alone  or  by 
the  enlistment  of  private  capital. 

It  is  the  latter  alternative  only  that  the  bill  brings  under  discussion.  We  have 
endeavored  to  find  a  solution  which  is  at  least  practicable,  if  not  the  most  satisfactory. 

If  private  capital  is  to  be  enlisted,  it  must  be  under  complete  Government  control. 
The  difficulties  in  the  way  of  such  control,  which  arise  from  the  international  character 
of  the  stream,  are  considerable,  but  it  seems  to  us  possible  to  overcome  them.  Among 
the  elements  of  Government  control  are:  (1)  Legislation  authorizing  the  construction 
of  the  works  and  prescribing  the  conditions  necessary  to  protect  navigation  and  other 
public  interests;  (2)  careful  scrutiny  of  detailed  plans  by  the  executive  and  require¬ 
ment  that  they  conform  to  the  conditions  prescribed  by  the  legislature;  (3)  super¬ 
vision  by  the  executive  of  the  construction  of  the  works  and  the  requirement  that 
they  conform  to  the  approved  plans;  (4)  establishment  and  enforcement  of  regulations 
for  operating  the  works.  It  seems  to  us  possible  to  secure  cooperation  of  the  two 
Governments  in  all  these  respects.  It  is  of  course  impracticable  for  the  legislatures 
of  the  two  countries  to  act  simultaneously.  One  must  act  in  advance  of  the  other;  but 
if  any  law  which  the  first  may  pass  shall  contain  the  proviso  that  it  shall  become 
operative  only  after  the  approval  of  the  other,  cooperation  in  legislation  will  be  secured. 

Cooperation  in  the  approval  of  plans,  the  supervision  of  the  construction  of  the 
works,  and  the  establishment  and  enforcement  of  regulations  for  operating  them  can 
be  obtained  through  this  commission  by  giving  it  executive  authority;  that  is,  by 
making  its  advice  potential  to  the  executives  of  the  respective  countries. 

The  bill  referred  to  us  seems  to  recognize  the  necessity  of  cooperation  between  the 
two  Governments,  but  it  does  so  in  a  vague  way,  and  is  much  less  explicit  than  it 
should  be.  A  separate  section  should  be  introduced,  worded  as  follows: 

“Section — .  This  act  shall  not  l)ecome  operative  until  the  Government  of  the 
Dominion  of  Canada  shall  signify  to  the  Secretary  of  the  State  of  the  United  States  its 
consent  to  the  construction  of  such  dam  and  other  structures:  Provided,  That  if  said 
consent  be  not  given  within  two  years  from  the  date  of  this  act  then  this  act  shall  be 
null  and  void.” 

The  conditions  provided  in  the  bill  for  the  protection  of  navigation  and  other  pub- 
lie  interests  are  contained  in  a  reference  to  two  United  States  laws  which  apply 
to  streams  which  are  exclusively  American.  To  make  them  applicable  to  the  St. 
Lawrence,  the  following  additional  provisos  should  be  introduced: 

And  'provided further,  That  all  plans,  drawings,  and  maps,  and  all  deviations  there¬ 
from  and  modifications  thereof,  either  before  or  after  completion  of  the  structures 


INTERNATIONAL  WATERWAYS  COMMISSION  PROGRESS  REPORT.  119 

and  all  conditions  and  stipulations  which  may  be  imposed  in  connection  with  the 
erection,  use,  and  operation  of  the  dams  and  works  shall  first  be  submitted  to  and 
approved  by  the  International  Waterways  Commission:  And  provided  further,  That 
the  construction,  maintenance,  regulation,  and  operation  of  such  structures  shall  be 
in  accordance  with  any  agreement  which  may  be  made  in  reference  thereto  between 
Great  Britain,  acting  on  behalf  of  the  Dominion  of  Canada,  and  the  Secretary  of 
State  of  the  United  States,  acting  on  behalf  of  the  United  States,  with  the  assent  of 
the  Secretary  of  War.” 

Additional  sections  should  be  introduced  as  follows,  viz: 

“Sec.  .  The  dam  or  dams,  and  lock  or  locks,  and  other  works  shall  be  constructed 
under  the  supervision  of  an  engineer  to  be  designated  by  the  Secretary  of  War;  when 
completed,  the  title  to  the  lock  on  the  south  side  of  the  boundary  shall  be  conveyed 
to  the  United  States,  together  with  perpetual  right  of  access  thereto  by  the  officers 
and  employees  of  the  United  States  over  any  and  all  parts  of  said  dam  and  over  any 
and  all  apj)roaches  thereto  and  over  any  and  all  bridges.  The  Long  Sault  Develop¬ 
ment  Co.  shall  maintain  said  locks,  dams,  bridges,  and  approaches  and  make  all 
repairs  thereon  in  such  manner  and  at  such  time  as  may  be  directed  by  the  Secretary 
of  War,  and  in  case  of  its  failure  to  do  so  the  Government  of  the  United  States  may  main¬ 
tain  said  works  and  make  repairs  at  the  expense  of  the  said  company,  which  company 
shall  reimburse  the  United  States  therefor.  Of  the  power  generated  by  the  works 
herein  authorized,  an  amount  which  in  the  opinion  of  the  Secretary  of  War  shall  be 
sufficient  to  operate  any  lock  or  locks  which  may  be  constructed  shall  be  furnished 
free  of  charge  to  the  Government  of  the  United  States. 

“Sec.  — .  When  completed  the  title  to  the  dam  or  dams  on  the  south  side  of  the 
boundary  shall  be  conveyed  by  the  Long  Sault  Development  Company  to  the  United 
States,  subject  to  perpetual  right  of  user  by  the  Long  Sault  Development  Company 
and  its  successors,  without  payment  for  such  use,  except  in  case  of  forfeiture:  Pro¬ 
vided,  That  in  case  the  said  company  shall  at  any  time  violate  any  of  the  provisions 
of  this  act,  or  fail  to  comply  with  the  directions  of  the  Secretary  of  War  or  the  Chief 
of  Engineers,  or  with  any  conditions  or  regulations  which  may  be  imposed  by  the 
International  Waterways  Commission,  with  the  approval  of  the  Secretary  of  War,  or 
with  any  conditions  or  regulations  which  may  be  made  pursuant  to  any  agreement 
between  the  United  States  and  Great  Britain,  on  behalf  of  the  Dominion  of  Canada, 
the  President  of  the  United  States  may  declare  the  said  right  of  user  forfeited,  and  so 
much  of  said  dam  or  dams  and  their  approaches,  and  of  said  bridges,  as  lie  south  of  the 
boundary,  shall  thereupon  become  the  property  of  the  United  States,  free  and  clear 
of  said  right  of  user. 

“Sec.  — .  The  United  States  shall  be  entitled  to  use  the  waters  impounded  by  said 
dam  and  works  for  the  purpose  of  operating  the  lock  or  locks  which  may  be  con¬ 
structed  south  of  the  boundary  line,  in  such  manner  and  at  such  times  as  the  Secre¬ 
tary  of  War  may  require,  and  the  United  States  shall  at  all  times  have  the  right  to 
control  the  use  of  the  dam  or  dams  and  the  levels  of  the  pool  or  pools  formed  thereby, 
to  such  extent  as  may  be  deemed  necessary  by  the  Secretary  of  War  to  provide  proper 
facilities  for  navigation,  and  the  withdrawal  of  water  from  such  pool  or  pools  for  the 
purpose  of  generating  power  shall  be  subject  to  such  regulations  as  may  be  made  by 
the  Secretary  of  War,  or  by  the  International  Waterways  Commission,  with  his 
approval,  and  shall  at  no  time  be  such  as  to  impede  or  interfere  with  the  safe  and  con¬ 
venient  navigation  of  the  said  river  by  means  of  steamboats  or  other  vessels  or  by 
rafts  or  barges. 

“Sec.  — .  The  Long  Sault  Development  Company,  its  successors  and  assigns,  shall 
construct  such  suitable  fishways  at  said  dam  or  dams  as  may  be  required  from  time  to 
time  by  the  Secretary  of  Commerce  and  Labor.” 

The  time  allowed  in  the  bill  for  completing  the  works — fifteen  years — seems  to  us 
too  great.  We  recommend  that  it  be  reduced  to  five  years,  and  that  a  new  section 
be  introduced  as  follows,  striking  out  all  of  the  bill  after  the  eighteenth  line  on  page  2: 

“Sec.  — .  The  actual  construction  of  the  works  herein  authorized  shall  be  begun 
within  one  year  and  completed  within  five  years  from  the  date  when  this  act  becomes 
operative.” 

The  principle  that  after  navigation  is  fully  provided  for  the  surplus  water  available 
for  power  purposes  shall  be  equally  divided  between  the  two  countries  is  not  men¬ 
tioned  in  the  bill,  but  should  find  a  place  there.  We  recommend  that  an  additional 
section  be  introduced,  worded  as  follows: 

“Sec.  — .  One  half  the  power  generated  by  the  works  herein  authorized  shall  be 
delivered  in  Canada  when  needed  there,  and  the  other  half  shall  be  delivered  in  the 
United  States  when  needed  there,  and  the  price  charged  shall  be  the  same  on  either 
side  of  the  boundary:  Provided,  That  in  case  a  market  can  not  be  found  in  one  coun¬ 
try  for  the  full  share  thus  assigned  to  that  country,  the  surplus  may  be  temporarily 


120  INTEENATIONAL  WATERWAYS  COMMISSION  PROGRESS  REPORT. 


diverted  to  the  other  country,  but  shall  be  returned  to  the  country  to  which  it  belongs 
when  needed  there.” 

Finally,  a  section  should  be  added  to  the  bill  reserving  the  right  to  alter,  amend, 
or  repeal  it. 

A  copy  of  the  bill  altered  to  conform  to  these  views  is  herewith  inclosed. 

Yours,  very  respectfully, 

O.  H.  Ernst, 

Brig.  Gen..,  U.  S.  Army,  Retired, 

Chairman,  American  Section. 

George  Clinton, 

Member,  American  Section. 

E.  E.  Haskell, 

Member,  American  Section. 

Attest: 

W.  Edward  Wilson, 

Secretary,  American  Section. 


Appendix  N. 

Project  for  the  More  Complete  Definition  and  Demarcation  of  the  Inter¬ 
national  Boundary,  Under  Article  IV  of  the  Treaty  of  April  11,  1908,  by 
THE  Commission,  June  23,  1908. 

Toronto,  Ontario,  ^Tune  23,  1908. 

The  honorable  the  Secretary  of  State  of  the  United  States  of  America  and 
The  honorable  the  Minister  of  Public  Works  of  the  Dominion  of  Canada. 

The  International  Waterways  Commission  has  the  honor  to  submit  the  following 
report  and  preliminary  estimate  upon  the  work  prescribed  to  it  by  article  4  of  the 
treaty  of  April  11,  1908,  relating  to  the  more  complete  definition  and  demarcation  of 
the  international  boundary  between  the  United  States  and  the  Dominion  of  Canada. 
1.  The  commission  has  decided  that  the  series  of  charts  be  uniform  in  size. 

That  a  scale  of  1  : 20,000  be  adopted  for  the  delineation  of  the  rivers  and  Pigeon 
Bay;  that  the  head  of  the  St.  Lawrence  River  and  foot  of  Lake  Ontario,  the  east  and 
west  ends  of  Lake  Erie,  Lake  St.  Clair,  False  Detour  Passage,  and  the  east  end  of 
Lake  Superior  (Whitefish  Bay)  be  delineated  on  a  scale  of  1:60,000;  that  Lakes 
Ontario,  Erie,  Huron,  and  Superior  be  delineated  on  a  scale  of  1  : 300,000;  and  that 
the  Niagara  River  from  Lewiston  to  La  Salle,  and  the  St.  Marys  River  from  Little 
Rapids  to  Point  Aux  Pins,  be  also  delineated  on  a  larger  scale  of  1 : 10,000. 

The  standard  size  of  these  charts  to  be  40  by  50  inches  within  the  border. 

Based  upon  the  foregoing,  there  will  be  required : 


Charts  for  the  St.  Lawrence  River . ■. .  7 

Charts  for  Lake  Ontario .  2 

Charts  for  Niagara  River .  2 

Charts  for  Lake  Erie .  3 

Charts  for  Detroit  River .  2 

Chart  for  Lake  St.  Clair .  1 

Charts  for  the  St.  Clair  River .  2 

Charts  for  Lake  Huron .  2 

Charts  for  St.  Marys  River .  4 

Charts  for  Lake  Superior .  3 

Chart  on  1  : 10,000  for  Niagara  Falls .  1 

Chart  on  1  : 10,000  for  St.  Marys  Falls .  1 


Total . > .  30 


That  these  charts  be  projected  upon  the  new  United  States  standard  datum,  and 
show  substantially  the  following: 

The  shore  line  of  the  lakes,  rivers,  islands,  and  the  mouths  of  the  more  important 
tributary  streams;  the  location  of  all  the  principal  cities  and  towns,  the  location  of  all 
lighthouses,  and  all  permanent  aids  to  navigation;  and  all  of  the  hydrography  avail¬ 
able  from  the  Canadian  and  United  States  surveys;  all  of  the  geographical  positions 
upon  which  the  projections  are  based;  the  boundary  line  and  all  monuments,  ranges, 
buoys,  etc.,  used  to  mark  it. 

Our  reasons  for  the  foregoing  recommendations  are  based  upon  a  careful  study  of 
the  Lake  Survey  charts.  It  was  found  that  a  series  of  charts  based  upon  two  scales, 


INTERNATIONAL  WATERWAYS  COMMISSION  PROGRESS  REPORT.  121 


one  for  the  lakes  and  one  for  the  rivers,  would  not  satisfy  all  of  the  conditions.  Three 
scales,  namely,  20,  60,  and  300  thousand,  cover  every  feature  of  the  boundary  in  a 
fairly  satisfactory  manner  with  the  possible  exception  of  the  immediate  localities  of 
Niagara  Falls  and  the  St.  Mary  Falls.  For  these  localities,  where  large  power  interests 
are  located,  we  have  adopted  a  chart  for  each  on  a  scale  of  1  :  10,000.  It  is  possible 
that  there  may  be  other  localities  where,  after  further  consideration,  it  may  be 
advisable  to  delineate  them  on  a  scale  of  1  :  10,000  also.  It  should  be  understood 
that  these  charts  on  this  scale  are  to  be  extras;  that  is,  they  will  cover  areas  that  will 
be  delineated  on  the  smaller  scale  charts.  It  will  be  seen  at  a  glance  that  this  method 
would  be  much  cheaper  than  to  produce  all  of  the  river  charts  on  a  scale  of  1  :  10,000. 

One  of  the  difficulties  of  producing  all  of  the  river  charts  on  a  scale  of  1  :  10,000  is 
that  in  certain  localities  they  would  not  show  enough  of  the  territory  adjacent  to  the 
river  to  permit  of  showing  permanent  marks  and  ranges. 

2.  Having,  as  above,  determined  upon  the  most  suitable  scales  for  the  proposed 
charts,  there  naturally  follows  the  question  of  production,  not  only  for  delineating 
the  boundary  line,  but  for  fulfilling  the  terms  of  the  treaty  by  making  four  copies, 
for  the  files  of  the  two  Governments. 

For  the  charts,  the  commission  is  of  the  opinion  that  the  surveys  of  the  United  States 
Lake  Survey  can  safely  be  taken,  as  they  embrace  all  the  United  States  shores  and 
much  of  the  Canadian,*  and  most  of  the  missing  portions  of  the  latter  can  be  filled  in 
from  the  work  of  the  Canadian  Hydrographic  Survey. 

The  majority  of  the  charts  of  the  United  States  Lake  Survey  now  in  use  were  con¬ 
structed  prior  to  the  connection  between  its  triangulation  and  that  of  the  Coast  and 
Geodetic  Survey,  from  which  was  derived  the  United  States  standard  datum,  and  as 
a  consequence  these  charts  are  not  in  accord  with  that  datum. 

In  our  opinion  it  would  be  quite  improper  for  an  international  commission  engaged 
in  such  an  important  work  as  the  delineation  of  a  boundary  line  to  offer  the  public 
of  two  countries  any  charts  not  drawn  from  the  latest  information  available. 

It  therefore  becomes  necessary  to  construct  new  charts  for  the  special  purpose  upon 
nearly  uniform  scales. 

The  charts  called  for  may  be  produced  in  three  ways:  (a)  By  drafting  on  paper, 
(6)  by  photolithography,  and  (c)  by  engraving. 

(a)  By  drafting— In  this  method  the  projection,  reduction,  and  drawing  must  all 
be  carefully  drawn  on  paper,  and  from  the  finished  sheet  four  separate  copies  would 
be  taken  singly  and  independently.  This  process  would  be  very  laborious  and 
costly,  and  would  leave  infinite  chances  for  inaccuracies,  inconsistencies,  and  omis¬ 
sions,  to  such  an  extent  that  it  would  be  almost  impossible  to  assert  that  any  two 
copies  were  exactly  alike.  In  addition,  most  of  the  accuracy  obtained  from  redrawing 
would  be  sacrificed  in  the  various  necessary  transfers. 

(5)  By  photolithography —In  this  method  one  copy  must  be  most  carefully  and 
neatly  drawn  in  every  particular  for  the  photographer.  The  commission  does  not 
feel  that  it  would  be  justified  in  adopting  this  method,  because  of  the  distortion  that 
usually  accompanies  the  use  of  photography. 

(c)  By  engraving are  two  kinds  of  engraving  usually  practiced  in  the 
production  of  charts,  that  upon  stone  and  that  upon  copper,  the  former  being  cheaper 
and  more  expeditious. 

In  this  process  the  projection  can  be  accurately  drawn  upon  the  stones  and  the 
details  of  shore  line,  hydrography,  etc.,  placed  directly  there  by  reducing  from  the 
originals  either  by  pantagraph  or  photography  without  any  necessity  for  a  finished 
drawing.  The  Commission  has  adopted  this  method  of  reproduction,  because  upon 
the  stone  the  chart  can  be  drawn  more  accurately  than  upon  paper,  and  from  this  any 
number  of  charts  can  be  printed  immediately,  each  one  exactly  like  all  the  others. 
In  addition,  if  thought  advisable,  the  charts  can  be  preserved  on  these  stones  for  all 
time;  or  they  can  be  transferred  to  copper  by  the  process  now  used  by  the  Lake 
Survey,  the  copper  plates  preserved,  and  the  stones  sold. 

An  approximate  estimate  of  the  chart  work  by  this  method  would  be  $60,000. 

3.  Field  work  required  for  the  preparation  of  charts:  In  the  construction  of  charts 
for  navigation  purposes  the  two  Governments  have  been  engaged  for  several  years. 
The  survey  of  the  United  States  shores  has  been  completed  in  conjunction  with  a 
primary  triangulation  that  extends  into  Canada  in  many  places.  Of  the  Canadian 
shores  those  of  Lakes  Huron  and  Erie  have  been  completed,  while  that  of  Lake 
Superior  is  practically  done,  and  wherever  possible  connection  has  been  made  with 
the  triangulation  of  the  United  States  Lake  Survey,  so  that  the  two  surveys  may  be 
taken  as  giving  an  accurate  delineation  of  the  outlines  of  the  lakes.  For  an  accur<^e 
determination  of  the  boundary  line  there  remains  to  be  surveyed  the  whole  of  the 
north  shore  of  Lake  Ontario  from  False  Ducks  to  Port  Dalhousie,  a  portion  of  Lake 
Superior  in  the  vicinity  of  Otter  Head,  and  a  resurvey  of  Pigeon  Bay  on  a  larger 
scale  than  has  been  used  by  the  Canadian  Hydrographic  Survey. 


122  INTEKNATIONAL  WATEKWAYS  COMMISSION  PKOGRESS  REPORT. 


4.  Placing  of  monuments,  ranges,  buoys,  etc.,  to  mark  the  boundary;  The  treaty 
calls  upon  the  commission  to  mark  the  international  boundary  by  monuments, 
ranges,  buoys,  etc.,  wherever  possible.  The  cost  of  this  work  will  depend  upon  the 
number  and  character  of  marks  established.  A  rough  estimate  of  cost  would  be 
$100,000,  making  an  approximate  total  estimate  for  doing  the  work  of  $160,000. 

A  probable  estimate  for  expenditures  the  first  year  is  $15,000  for  each  Government. 
All  of  which  is  respectfully  submitted. 

Geo.  C.  Gibbons, 

Chairman,  Canadian  Section. 
Louis  Coste, 

Member,  Canadian  Section. 
Wm.  J.  Stewart, 

Member,  Canadian  Section. 

0.  H.  Ernst, 

Brigadier  General,  United  States  Army,  Retired, 

Chairman,  American  Section. 
George  Clinton, 

Member,  American  Section. 
E.  E.  Haskell, 

Member,  American  Section. 

Attest: 

Thomas  Cote, 

Secretary  Canadian  Section. 

W.  Edward  Wilson, 

Secretary  American  Section. 


Appendix  0. 

Appropriations  Heretofore  Made  for  the  Use  of  the  International  Water 

WAYS  Commission. 

War  Department. 


River  and  harbor  act,  approved  June  13,  1902 .  $20,000 

Sundry  civil  act  approved  June  30,  1906 .  20, 000 

Sundry  civil  act  approved  Mar.  4,  1907 .  20,  000 

Sundry  civil  act  approved  May  27,  1908 .  20,  000 

Sundry  civil  act  approved  Mar.  3,  1909 .  20,  000 

Sundry  civil  act  approved  June  25,  1910 .  20, 000 

Sundry  civil  act  approved  Mar.  4,  1911 . . .  20,  000 

Sundry  civil  act  approved  Aug.  24,  1912 .  10,  000 


Total .  150,000 


State  Department. 


Diplomatic  and  consular  act  approved  May  21,  1908 .  $10,  000 

Diplomatic  and  consular  act  approved  Mar.  2,  1909 .  20,  000 

Diplomatic  and  consular  act  approved  May  6,  1910 .  30,  000 

Diplomatic  and  consular  act  approved  Mar.  3,  1911 .  20, 000 


Total .  80, 000 


o 


- -Y  &  -•  • 


:,,f 


1  -lAi-.v, 

■■  T--  ■ :  • 

..  ^•'  ■  ■«'  IT'  .-  .^yv. 


S'' '*.'  V.  ■  -•  •  ■•;  .Vh'  . ' 

»bC'-  ^  *  V  ;■  m.:  :'y 


'>-'1 -'^f  ■ ' 


'  ’/.I 


